Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Multinazionali rigettano la politica estera della Harris-Biden Administration.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-29.

Lutero. 95 Tesi 001

«A bipartisan Congressional panel blasted U.S.-based corporate sponsors of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics on Tuesday, including Coca-Cola, Visa Inc. and Airbnb, accusing them of putting profits ahead of accusations of genocide in China»

«Republican Congressman Chris Smith told the Congressional-Executive Commission on China hearing that the sponsors needed to reconcile their “ostensible commitment to human rights” with subsidizing an Olympics where the host country is “actively committing human rights abuses”»

«All of them declined to opine, or said they had no responsibility over site selection»

«We do not make decisions on these host locations. We support and follow the athletes wherever they compete»

«When asked about the U.S. government determination that China was committing a genocide against Uyghurs and other Muslims minority groups, only Steve Rodgers, executive vice president and general counsel for Intel, said he believed it»

«I’ve read the State Department report. I’ve studied it, and I believe its conclusions»

«Other executives said they respected the U.S. government’s conclusions, but would not weigh in on the matter»

«China denies wrongdoing, saying it has set up vocational training centers to combat extremism»

«Obviously, every one of you, with the exception on occasion of Mr. Rodgers, was sent here with orders not to say anything that could offend the Chinese Communist Party»

«Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski rebuked Airbnb’s head of Olympics and Paralympics partnership David Holyoke for not being more outspoken about criticism toward the Chinese government that it has prevented Uyghurs and Tibetans from obtaining passports and identification cards»

«→→ In China we are required to follow local laws and regulations ←←»

«You’re just completely absolving yourself of responsibility for being complicit in abject discrimination»

«Malinowski noted that Coca-Cola was willing to wade into U.S. politics and condemn voting rights restrictions in its home state of Georgia, but would not criticize China’s government»

«→→ You are afraid of them in a way that you are not afraid of critics in the United States ←←»

«it was “absolutely clear” that the company refused to criticize Beijing for fear it would harm its profits in China.»

* * * * * * *

Nel 2022 si dovrebbero tenere in Cina le Olimpiadi Invernali, Beijing Winter Olympics.

Questa è una ghiotta occasione per le multinazionali che le sponsorizzano per aumentare la propria visibilità ed anche per migliorare la propria penetrazione nel promettente mercato cinese.

Ma per poter operare in Cina, e continuare a farlo, le multinazionale devono obbedire alle leggi locali.

«→→ In China we are required to follow local laws and regulations ←←»

Queste multinazionali sono in netta opposizione alla politica estera dell’attuale Harris-Biden Administration, la quale giornalmente condanna la Cina per presunte violazioni degli human rights, intendendo per essi ciò che prescrive l’ideologia liberal. Secondo i congressisti, le multinazionali avrebbero dovuto boicottare le Beijing Winter Olympics, cosa questa dalla quale se ne guardano più che bene.

L’eterogenesi dei fini è quasi sempre implacabile.

Biden attacca nuovamente la Cina e questa replica al vetriolo.

Cina. Un j’accuse ferocemente e brutalmente rude, e vero, contro gli Stati Uniti.

«China would not accept the United States taking a “superior” position in the relationship»

Bene.

Questo comportamento è causa efficiente di una sempre più evidente frattura tra la Harris-Biden Administration ed il mondo del lavoro e dell’industria, sottominando la concordia e coerenza nazionale: l’industria rinnega infatti questa crociata ideologica e si comporta così in modo autonomo.

Ma midterm si sta avvicinando, e le elargizioni dell’industria sarebbero fondamentali per il partito democratico.

*


‘Pathetic and disgraceful’: U.S. lawmakers blast Coca-Cola, Visa and others over Beijing Olympics

WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) – A bipartisan Congressional panel blasted U.S.-based corporate sponsors of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics on Tuesday, including Coca-Cola, Visa Inc. and Airbnb, accusing them of putting profits ahead of accusations of genocide in China.

Republican Congressman Chris Smith told the Congressional-Executive Commission on China hearing that the sponsors needed to reconcile their “ostensible commitment to human rights” with subsidizing an Olympics where the host country is “actively committing human rights abuses”.

Smith asked each of the executives at the hearing – from Airbnb, Coca-Cola, Intel, Visa Inc and Procter & Gamble – whether the games should be relocated or postponed due to concerns over human rights violations. All of them declined to opine, or said they had no responsibility over site selection.

“We do not make decisions on these host locations. We support and follow the athletes wherever they compete,” Coca-Cola’s global vice president for human rights Paul Lalli said.

When asked about the U.S. government determination that China was committing a genocide against Uyghurs and other Muslims minority groups, only Steve Rodgers, executive vice president and general counsel for Intel, said he believed it.

“I’ve read the State Department report. I’ve studied it, and I believe its conclusions,” Rodgers said, drawing praise from Republican Senator Tom Cotton for his “straight answer.”

Other executives said they respected the U.S. government’s conclusions, but would not weigh in on the matter.

The executives represent the five U.S. companies that have sponsorship commitments running through the Beijing Games under the official Olympic Partner (TOP) Program.

Rights groups, researchers, former residents and some Western lawmakers and officials say Chinese authorities have facilitated forced labor by detaining around a million Uyghurs and other primarily Muslim minorities in camps since 2016.

President Joe Biden’s administration agreed with a determination by the former Trump administration that the detention camps and other abuses amounted to genocide.

China denies wrongdoing, saying it has set up vocational training centers to combat extremism. The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

“Obviously, every one of you, with the exception on occasion of Mr. Rodgers, was sent here with orders not to say anything that could offend the Chinese Communist Party,” Cotton said, calling testimony at the hearing “pathetic and disgraceful”.

Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski rebuked Airbnb’s head of Olympics and Paralympics partnership David Holyoke for not being more outspoken about criticism toward the Chinese government that it has prevented Uyghurs and Tibetans from obtaining passports and identification cards that would allow them to travel freely and register at hotels.

“In China we are required to follow local laws and regulations,” Holyoke said, adding that “human rights are core to our values.”

“You’re just completely absolving yourself of responsibility for being complicit in abject discrimination,” Malinowski said.

Asked repeatedly by Malinowski if Coca-Cola would specifically condemn any Chinese government abuses against Uyghurs, Lalli said without mentioning China: “We respect all human rights.”

Malinowski noted that Coca-Cola was willing to wade into U.S. politics and condemn voting rights restrictions in its home state of Georgia, but would not criticize China’s government.

“You are afraid of them in a way that you are not afraid of critics in the United States. I think that’s shameful,” Malinowski told Lalli, adding that it was “absolutely clear” that the company refused to criticize Beijing for fear it would harm its profits in China.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Ideologia liberal, Ong - Ngo, Vizi e Depravazioni

Cina. Criticata ferocemente perché usa sui social le tecniche imparate da Facebook e Google.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-16.

Cina 017

«The U.S. State Department said on Wednesday it was concerned about reports that China had restricted use of social media accounts of LGBTQI Plus student groups and non-governmental organizations.» [Reuters]

Siamo al paradosso: il Dipartimento di Stato ha quasi come unica preoccupazione sulla Cina questo particolare problema.

* * * * * * *

Il problema sarebbe semplice nella sua complessità.

Cina ed enclave liberal occidentale hanno Weltanschauung opposte e conflittuali, che non si tollerano a vicenda.

La grande differenza però consiste nel fatto che mentre i cinesi si fanno i fatti propri, i liberal occidentali vorrebbero poter imporre la loro visione di vita a tutti coloro che non la condividono, fatto questo molto mal recepito in Cina.

Poi, quando i social occidentali bloccano utenti ed impediscono la pubblicazioni di post contrari all’ideologia liberal, alla questa sarebbe cosa corretta, giusta e meritoria.

* * * * * * *

Cina. Si ribella alla femminilizzazione dei suoi maschi. Li vuole virili.

«A notice from China’s education ministry has caused a stir after it suggested young Chinese men had become too “feminine”»

«For a while China’s government has signalled concern that the country’s most popular male role models are no longer strong, athletic figures like “army heroes”»

«So last week, the education ministry issued a notice with a title that left no doubt about its ultimate goal»

«The Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents called on schools to fully reform their offerings on physical education and strengthen their recruitment of teachers»

«”cultivating students’ masculinity”»

* * *

Hollywood. Sta perdendo il grande mercato cinese. Troppo liberal.

«The share of foreign films, including those from Hollywood, slipped to 16% of Chinese ticket receipts in 2020 from 36% the year before»

«Meanwhile, several of Hollywood’s highly anticipated, big-budget films either flopped in China or faced public-relations issues»

«Walt Disney Co.’s fantasy-action drama “Mulan” stirred up controversy for its portrayal of Chinese culture and was also criticized for filming in the Xinjiang region, where the government is accused of oppressing Muslim-minority Uighurs»

«Chinese consumer sentiment toward anything American is at an all-time, modern day low»

* * * * * * *

«While homosexuality, which was classified as a mental disorder until 2001, is legal in China, same sex marriage is not recognised»

«This year, a court upheld a university’s description of homosexuality as a “psychological disorder”, ruling that it was not a factual error»

«China’s Wechat deletes university LGBT accounts»

«Chinese tech giant Tencent’s WeChat social media platform has deleted dozens of LGBT accounts run by university students, saying some had broken rules on information on the internet, sparking fear of a crackdown on gay content online»

«Members of several LGBT groups told Reuters that access to their accounts was blocked late on Tuesday and they later discovered that all of their content had been deleted»

«They censored us without any warning. All of us have been wiped out»

«Attempts by Reuters to access some accounts were met with a notice from WeChat saying the groups “had violated regulations on the management of accounts offering public information service on the Chinese internet”»

«Other accounts did not show up in search results.»

«The Weibo social media platform, owned by Weibo Corp, has at times removed lesbian content and the online community board platform Zhihu has censored topics on gender and identity»


* * * * * *

China’s Wechat deletes university LGBT accounts

Chinese tech giant Tencent’s WeChat social media platform has deleted dozens of LGBT accounts run by university students, saying some had broken rules on information on the internet, sparking fear of a crackdown on gay content online.

Members of several LGBT groups told Reuters that access to their accounts was blocked late on Tuesday and they later discovered that all of their content had been deleted.

“Many of us suffered at the same time,” said the account manager of one group who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.

“They censored us without any warning. All of us have been wiped out.”

Attempts by Reuters to access some accounts were met with a notice from WeChat saying the groups “had violated regulations on the management of accounts offering public information service on the Chinese internet”.

Other accounts did not show up in search results.

WeChat did not immediately respond to emailed questions.

While homosexuality, which was classified as a mental disorder until 2001, is legal in China, same sex marriage is not recognised. Social stigma and pressure still deter people from coming out.

This year, a court upheld a university’s description of homosexuality as a “psychological disorder”, ruling that it was not a factual error.

The LGBT community has repeatedly found itself falling foul of censors and the Cyberspace Administration of China recently pledged to clean up the internet to protect minors and crack down on social media groups deemed a “bad influence”.

The Weibo social media platform, owned by Weibo Corp, has at times removed lesbian content and the online community board platform Zhihu has censored topics on gender and identity.

Last year, China’s only pride festival was cancelled indefinitely after organisers cited concerns over staff safety.

“Authorities have been tightening the space available for LGBT advocacy and civil society generally. This is another turning of the screw,” said Darius Longarino, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai’s China Center, who focuses on LGBT rights and gender equality.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Vignette Umoristiche

Italia. Il ddl Zan spiegato con un pupazzo di neve. – Barzelletta molto reale.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-08.

Pazzia__004

Riceviamo in forma anonima, e quindi non sappiamo chi poter ringraziare, questa barzelletta, che fa sorridere proprio perché è simpaticamente reale.


Ha nevicato per tutta la notte.

08:00 faccio un uomo di neve.
8:10 passa una femminista e mi chiede perché non ho fatto una donna di neve.
8:15 faccio una donna di neve.
8:17 la mia vicina femminista si lamenta del seno voluminoso della donna di neve perché dipinge le donne di neve come oggetti.
8:20 una coppia gay che vive lì vicino mi guarda storto lamentandosi del perché non ci sono due uomini di neve.
8:22 un transessuale passando mi dice che avrei dovuto fare un uomo di neve con parti rimovibili.
8:25 dei vegani che abitano in fondo alla via si lamentano della carota usata come naso dicendo che è cibo e non una decorazione per pupazzi.
8:28 passano delle persone di colore e mi danno del razzista perché la coppia di neve è bianca.
8:31 dei musulmani sull’altro lato della strada chiedono che la donna di neve indossi un burka.
8:40 arriva la polizia dicendo che alcune persone si sono offese.
8:42 la mia vicina femminista si lamenta per la scopa che raffigura la donna umiliata e costretta a svolgere lavori domestici.
8:43 un funzionario del ministero per le Pari Opportunità arriva e mi minaccia di denuncia.
8:45 dei reporter del Tg 3 e Tg La 7 si avvicinano chiedendomi che differenza c’è tra l’uomo e la donna di neve. Io rispondo “le palle” e mi accusano di sessismo.
9:00 appaio al telegiornale come sospetto terrorista, razzista, omofobo e intenzionato a sollevare problemi durante il maltempo.
9:10 mi chiedono se ho dei complici.
9:15 mi arrestano.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Epidemia. Secondo il regime i ‘negazionisti’ sarebbero malati di mente. Come in Urss.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-11-21.

Mill. Sulla libertà 013

Nella Unione Sovietica di infausta memoria i ‘dissidenti‘ erano solitamente etichettati come malati di mente ed internati in appositi ospedali psichiatrici per il ‘trattamento‘: i dissidenti erano ‘antisovietici‘.

In senso lato, si definisce ‘dissidente’ chi contesti attivamente una dottrina, una istituzione ovvero una politica consolidata, intendendo con questo ultimo termine il potere costituito, the power that be.

Laddove sussista la libertà, e con essa la reale possibilità di poter parlare liberamente e poter anche argomentare contro gli indirizzi governativi, le opinioni differenti svolgono il fondamentale ruolo di sviscerare una problematica esaminandola da molteplici punti di vista.

Ma dove la libertà non alberga, ecco spuntare gli zelanti sostenitori del regime che bollano come ‘dissidente’ chiunque osi avanzare delle critiche e, passo successivo, definirlo di imperio ‘malato di mente’: ossia pazzo da legare.

Nei tempi correnti, al termine ‘dissidente‘ è subentrato quello di ‘negazionista‘, ossia colui che nega l’ideologia dominante e le sue conseguenze.

* * * * * * *


«Regime Coronavirus. Restrizione delle libertà e panico, esperti che danno la linea»

«A Di Martedì da Floris su La 7 i “negazionisti” come “malati mentali”»

«Anche stamattina su RaiUno lo scrittore Sandro Veronesi ha paragonato il negazionismo ad un problema di rimozione e ad malattia psichiatrica»

«Nel luogo comune però il “negazionista” (sostantivo orrendo che paragona una corrente di storici criminali che negava la Shoah a chi nega la letalità del virus) non è solo colui che esclude l’esistenza del Coronavirus ma è anche chi solleva dubbi sulla sua origine, sulla natura, sulla gestione della pandemia fatta dai governi, sui modelli di intervento degli esperti o presunti tali, sull’interpretazione dei dati del contagio»

«Senza accorgercene e con poche mosse siamo slittati a marchiare le idee diverse e il dissenso come una grave malattia mentale o addirittura neurodegenerativa»

«Questo atteggiamento, rilanciato a reti unificate è pericolosissimo ma è passato come naturale»

«Siamo di fronte ad uno strisciante atteggiamento che non si fa fatica a definire “ariano” e che con un sistema lombrosiano associa il dissenso ad una degenerazione mentale e ricorda tanto certe dittature che le usavano per zittire chiunque non la pensasse come nella vulgata corrente»

«In un sistema liberal democratico chiunque deve poter esprimere le proprie opinioni, senza essere accusato di essere un malato mentale»

«In un sistema liberal democratico chiunque deve poter esprimere le proprie opinioni, senza essere accusato di essere un malato mentale»

«Le democrazie dovrebbero funzionare così»

«Intanto sta però passando un concetto storico e civile pericoloso: in ogni momento di sofferenza dello Stato si possono sospendere le libertà individuali e bloccare economia e vite umane»

«Poi l’ex direttore del Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli afferma che a Trump va tolta la parola quando parla di brogli elettorali»

«Questi negazionisti del Coronavirus quando li interniamo nei campi di concentramento?»

«E i libri quando li bruciamo?»

* * * * * * *


Galileo Galilei era un negazionista.

Isaac Newton era un negazionista.

Albert Einstein era un negazionista.

Kurt Friedrich Gödel era un negazionista.

Si faccia molta attenzione.

Se è vero che il tempo è galantuomo ed alla fine riabilita pienamente i negazionisti del tempo passato, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare come la perdita della libertà sia il peggior vulnus con cui colpire l’essere umano.

*


Chi ha dubbi è negazionista e malato mentale. Stiamo scivolando in un regime?

Regime Coronavirus. Restrizione delle libertà e panico, esperti che danno la linea. A Di Martedì da Floris su La 7 i “negazionisti” come “malati mentali” ma…

Questi negazionisti del Coronavirus quando li interniamo nei campi di concentramento? E i libri quando li bruciamo?

Da quando la biologa Barbara Gallavotti a Di Martedì di Giovanni Floris su La 7 ha paragonato i “negazionisti” a “certe forme di demenza”, citando il neuroscienziato Earl Miller, con tanto di grafica del cervello che “si convince di un’idea falsa” è partita in Italia una campagna mediatica surreale. Decine di opinionisti, dalla Rai ai canali privati, attaccano chiunque non accetti le linee guida su cui si muovono governi ed esperti, tacciandoli come “negazionisti”, deridendoli o stigmatizzandoli come pericolosi per il benessere dei cittadini.

Anche stamattina su RaiUno lo scrittore Sandro Veronesi ha paragonato il negazionismo ad un problema di rimozione e ad malattia psichiatrica. Nel luogo comune però il “negazionista” (sostantivo orrendo che paragona una corrente di storici criminali che negava la Shoah a chi nega la letalità del virus) non è solo colui che esclude l’esistenza del Coronavirus ma è anche chi solleva dubbi sulla sua origine, sulla natura, sulla gestione della pandemia fatta dai governi, sui modelli di intervento degli esperti o presunti tali, sull’interpretazione dei dati del contagio.

Senza accorgercene e con poche mosse siamo slittati a marchiare le idee diverse e il dissenso come una grave malattia mentale o addirittura neurodegenerativa. Probabilmente non avendo mai visto cosa sia davvero la demenza e una malattia neurodegenerativa. In punta di epistemologia anche le affermazioni del dottor Miller sono opinioni, non è scienza. Il professore non ha monitorato il comportamento del cervello di centinaia di “negazionisti” per verificarne la demenza! Casomai con degli elettrodi collegati alla corteccia celebrale! (vi ricorda qualcuno?)

Questo atteggiamento, rilanciato a reti unificate è pericolosissimo ma è passato come naturale. Siamo di fronte ad uno strisciante atteggiamento che non si fa fatica a definire “ariano” e che con un sistema lombrosiano associa il dissenso ad una degenerazione mentale e ricorda tanto certe dittature che le usavano per zittire chiunque non la pensasse come nella vulgata corrente. E se anche uno stimato e ottimo giornalista come Giovanni Floris fa passare come normali stigme del genere allora siamo a qualcosa di molto più grave delle stupidaggini di chi nega l’esistenza del virus!

In un sistema liberal democratico chiunque deve poter esprimere le proprie opinioni, senza essere accusato di essere un malato mentale. Il Covid esiste, può avere conseguenze gravi, alcuni muoiono tanti altri ne escono, ma ognuno deve poter esprimere le proprie opinioni. Le democrazie dovrebbero funzionare così.

In realtà i media sembrano andare in un’altra direzione, spandendo ansia invece che informare e zittendo chi non ripete ciò che è previsto. 

Prima l’associazione “negazionisti”- malati mentali. Poi l’ex direttore del Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli afferma che a Trump va tolta la parola quando parla di brogli elettorali, tornando sui suoi passi dopo essere stato stroncato da un articolo di Maurizio Tortorella su La Verità.

Intanto sta però passando un concetto storico e civile pericoloso: in ogni momento di sofferenza dello Stato si possono sospendere le libertà individuali e bloccare economia e vite umane. Ma non siamo di fronte ad un mostro sconosciuto, ai primi momenti di caos di febbraio, sono passati mesi di inerzia e di risposte insufficienti dello Stato e dei suoi burocrati che hanno anteposto l’inerzia al discernimento, il caso al raziocinio, l’improvvisazione all’organizzazione causando i danni che vediamo.

In più tutti santi giorni i quotidiani che sostengono il governo affermano che le pecche nella gestione del Coronavirus sarebbero causate dagli ostacoli frapposti dalle opposizioni.

Ora cosa ci dobbiamo aspettare, trasmissioni tv sulla genetica delle opinioni?

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Sadismo politico. Non è fine a sé stesso, ma mezzo di dominio.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-11-02.

Maestro Ruggero, Carmen Miserabile

Treccani definisce il termine sadismo in questa maniera:

«Termine che lo psichiatra tedesco R. von Krafft-Ebing coniò nel 1869 per designare questa anomalia psicosessuale, derivandolo dal nome del marchese D.-A.-F. de Sade (1740-1814) …. autore di opere caratterizzate da un erotismo particolarmente crudele.

Condizione psichica che riguarda la sfera della psicosessualità e che si manifesta con la necessità di associare l’eccitazione e l’appagamento sessuali con stati di dolore, umiliazione e sim., del partner. …. Per estensione, crudeltà mentale fine a sé stessa, consistente nel gusto sottile di fare e vedere soffrire gli altri, di punzecchiarli e tormentarli con parole o azioni che irritino o comunque mettano a disagio senza alcuna necessità e giustificazione»

* * * * * * *

Questa definizione rende abbastanza l’idea di cosa significhi il termine sadismo, ma la relega alla sfera psicosessuale secondo i canoni psicoanalitici. Nei fatti è una definizione molto parziale.

Se è vero che il sadico gode profondamente nel seviziare le proprie vittime fino al punto di diventarne dipendente, incapace di vivere senza qualcuno da martirizzare, sarebbe anche vero constatare come nei rapporti umani, specie poi in politica, le azioni sadiche non siano più un fine, bensì un mezzo per piegare la personalità e la volontà altrui alla propria. In questo caso l’attore tortura le sue vittime al fine di annientarne la volontà propria, facendola aderire perfettamente alla propria.

La sindrome di Stoccolma è un esempio recente di quanto asserito: alla fine Elisabeth, 21 anni, cassiera; Kristin, 23 anni, stenografa; Brigitte, 31 anni, impiegata diventarono attive collaboratrici di chi le aveva sequestrate.

Ma la storia ci propone esempi di sadismo politico e militare di portata incommensurabilmente più vasta. Mutatis mutandis, sono esempi che potrebbero insegnare molto anche ai giorni nostri.

* * * * * * *

Terrificante e maieutica è la lettura del libro di Maestro Ruggero, Carmen Miserabile, l’invasione dei mongoli in Europa.

Nel 1240 l’esercito mongolo era arrivato ai confini orientale dell’attuale Ungheria. Era un esercito di non comune disciplina, estremamente mobile essendo composto quasi totalmente da cavalieri, che usavano strategie e tattiche allora ignote agli europei, quali la fuga tattica ed il combattimento con gli archi. Il loro obiettivo strategico era la generazione di uno stato cuscinetto desertico tra loro e l’Occidente.

Re Bela IV di Ungheria era il classico principotto europeo, tutto preso dal tenere a bada vicini voraci, quali l’Impero ed i Polacchi, ma con un potere centrale fragile: la nobiltà era riottosa verso il potere centrale, sfacciata nelle pretese autonomistiche, quanto disorganizzata e per nulla coesa nelle reti di alleanze. Andarono incontro ai mongoli come se fossero andati ad un ballo in maschera.

Maestro Ruggero era un cistercense mandato quale ambasciatore informale in Ungheria, e ne fece cronaca de visu.

Gli ungheresi si cullavano nel ricordo della battaglia di Lechfeld, ma si illudevano. Si erano illusi che

«un regno che parlasse un’unica lingua fosse povero e debole, e la pluralità delle culture, invece, una risorsa insostituibile».

Giusto poco prima della invasione mongola gli ungheresi avevano accolto una gran massa di Cumani, messi in fuga proprio dall’avanzata dei mongoli: si misero in seno e coccolarono una serpe.

Poi, il regno ungherese era travagliato dal problema magistralmente descritto da san Pier Daminani nel suo Liber Gomorrhianus. L’omosessualità era diffusa nella classe dirigente ed era anche esaltata, ma gli effeminati sono poco avvezzi alle crudeltà della guerra. Sono la caricatura delle femminuccie piangiolente.

* * * * * * *

I mongoli di Bathu, coadiuvato da Subotai, avevano imperversato sul principato russo di Kiev e sui bulgari del Volga. Quindi, divisi in tre gruppi, puntarono diritti verso la Polonia, verso la Cumania, la Transilvania e la Bulgaria, mentre Bathu Kahn in persona si diresse verso l’Ungheria, penetrandovi attraverso il passo di Vereckte.

Re Bela radunò un esercito per lo più di fanti, con pochi cavalieri: non riusciva nemmeno a capire dove fossero i mongoli. Questi facevano ampie incursioni in profondità, ammazzando chiunque incontrassero e bruciando tutti gli insediamenti, dalle città fino ai piccoli borghi.

Bela non aveva la minima idea della furbizia mongola. Venne l’inverno. Per gli ungheresi un freddo intenso, per i mongoli una tarda primavera. Il Danubio ghiacciato fu la loro autostrada. Liberavano quattro ronzini sulla riva: poi, quando gli ingordi ungheresi andavano a prenderseli, testimoniando così che il ghiaccio era abbastanza spesso, si buttavano furiosi al contrattacco.

Il 9 aprile la colonna a nord annientò l’esercito polacco a Legnica: non prese nemmeno un prigioniero. Due giorni dopo, a Mohi, Bathu Kahan annientò l’esercito ungherese, di cui scamparono in poche decine. Mentre re Bela scappava, Federico il Litigioso, duca d’Austria, scese in guerra contro l’Ungheria.

Caratteristica dei mongoli era una conoscenza esaustiva di ogni possibile mezzo di tortura: appena possibile, non uccidevano a colpi di spada o colpi di frecce ma compiendo efferate torture, che spesso duravano giorni e settimane. Possibilmente, tutte pubbliche.

Ricordiamo un solo episodio: l’assedio di Esztergom, una fortezza giudicata imprendibile secondo i canoni occidentali. Lì si erano radunati i nobili ed i ricchi ungheresi. Ma le macchine di assedio mongole erano state una amara novità: i mongoli infatti non se le trascinavano dietro, ma se le sapevano costruire sul posto. La città fu cinta da una palizzata.

Intanto i mongoli

«con il fuoco che avevano allestito, arrostivano gli uomini vivi con se fossero porci».

Come di abitudine, le donne assediate credettero di poter fare le furbe con i mongoli. Morsicarono il marmo.

«Le donne dell’alta nobiltà, da parte loro, abbigliate come meglio potevano, si erano riunite in un palazzo. E comprendendo che sarebbero state prese ed uccise, chiesero udienza al gran principe. E così, tutte assieme  – erano circa trecento – furono condotte fuori dalla città. Esse pregarono il comandante tartaro affinché le conservasse in vita, come forma di concessione. Ma egli ordinò che, dopo essere state spogliate, fossero tutte decapitate, ma dopo che fossero state scorticate vive.»

* * * * * * *

Ci vollero secoli perché il Regno Ungherese potesse riprendersi: i sopravissuti non erano infatti più di diecimila persone. I mongoli si attestarono su quei confini solo perché avevano problemi interni.

Né ci si dimentichi che i mongoli di Hutagu Kahn nel 1258 assediarono e distrussero Baghdad.

Le persone che i mongoli risparmiavano diventavano loro schiavi, ma non nel senso latino, bensì di quello greco di Δούλοι: corpi senza anima, volontà e persona.

L’unico modo per poter sopravvivere era quello di trasformarsi in mongoli, acquisendone la mentalità come zelanti prosseneti. L’impero mongolo in Europa si reggeva sicuramente sull’esercito, ma soprattutto sulla perfetta e volontaria collaborazione dei loro sottomessi. Avevano usato la violenza estrema per ottenere non solo sottomissione totale, bensì anche collaborazione.

* * * * * * *

Il vero sadico è colui che usa i tormenti psichici e fisici al fine di asservire la volontà della vittima: vuole farne un suo replicante.

Se esaminato da questo punto di vista, lo stereotipato comportamento dei dittatori e dei tiranni altro non è che il tentativo, spesso ben riuscito, di asservire menti e coscienze dei loro popoli.

Il comunismo fu maestro in questa impresa, ma i suoi epigoni non son certo da meno.

Fëdor Dostoevskij li ritrae con immortale maestria nel monologo del Grande Inquisitore nei Fratelli Karamazov e From li analizzò spietatamente ne La Fuga dalla Libertà. Per non menzionare il Gregge Belante che Orwell descrisse nel suo libro 1984.

In questo possiamo riconoscere con grande facilità la strategia e mezzi usati dai liberal socialisti, culminati nel politicamente corretto e nel gender, che cercano di imporre pena l’ostracismo, la morte civile.

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

Trump nominerà il successore della Ginsburg venerdì oppure sabato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-23.

2020-09-19__ Suprema Corte 001

«Mitch McConnell says he does plan to vote on Trump’s nominee»

«President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days, multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation»

«The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender»

«Sources added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already been in touch with members of the Republican caucus after news of Ginsburg’s passing was announced»

«The Senate needs just a simple majority to confirm a nominee, with Republicans currently holding 53 seats»

«Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year»

* * * * * * *


In queste elezioni presidenziali non è in gioco la nomina del Presidente, bensì quale Weltanschauung dominerà gli Stati Uniti nei prossimi decenni.

Non è questo tempo e luogo per argomentare sulle previsioni di intenzione di voto: si constata soltanto che se Mr Trump riuscisse a far nominare un terzo giudice della Corte Suprema, la maggioranza repubblicana sarebbe blindata per almeno tre decenni. Ed, in ultima analisi, è questo corpo di nove giudici nominati a vita che governa nei fatti l’America.

Sarà uno scontro ai limiti del surreale. Sarà estremamente violento, e nessuno si stupirebbe se si assistesse a molti sanguinosi attentati.

Nota.

Il candidato al momento favorito sarebbe il Giudice Amy Coney Barrett, 48enne, di religione cattolica.

*


Donald Trump to put forth nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in coming days: Sources.

Mitch McConnell says he does plan to vote on Trump’s nominee.

President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days, multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation told ABC News.

The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender, two sources tell ABC News.

Trump was asked about Ginsburg’s death after leaving his Friday night campaign rally in Minnesota and said he was not aware of her passing. The 87-year-old justice died Friday after a battle with pancreatic cancer, the court announced.

“Wow. I didn’t know that. I just — you’re telling me now for the first time,” he told reporters. “She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman. Whether you agree or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I’m actually sad to hear that. I am sad to hear that.”

Sources added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already been in touch with members of the Republican caucus after news of Ginsburg’s passing was announced. The Senate needs just a simple majority to confirm a nominee, with Republicans currently holding 53 seats.

McConnell refused to bring then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia in 2016 — Merrick Garland — to the floor for a vote, but said he will not do the same this time.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” McConnell said in a statement following Ginsburg’s death.

“By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” he continued. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Trump told CNN in March 2016 that he believed the next president — presumably him — should pick the nominee, not Obama.

“I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn’t go forward,” he told “New Day” on March 16, 2016. “And I believe I’m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying. I think that the next president should make the pick. We don’t have a very long distance to wait.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went as far as to say Republicans had officially changed procedures in a speech from the floor in 2016 and to play back the video if a Supreme Court spot came up in 2020.

“If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, and you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right,” he said. “We are setting a precedent here today.”

Obama released a statement both extolling the virtues of Ginsburg, while simultaneously reminding Republicans of their decision in 2016.

“Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in,” he said in a statement. “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

“The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle,” he continued. “As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.

Current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was vice president at the time of Garland’s nomination and told reporters in Delaware late Friday on his return from campaigning in Minnesota that Republicans should stick to what they said in 2016.

“In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of justice, and her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt — let me be clear that the voters should pick the president, and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden said. “This was the position the Republican Senate took in 2016 when there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That’s the position the United States Senate must take today.”

Even if a nominee is put forth, the timeframe would seem tight for confirming a justice before Election Day. The average number of days from SCOTUS nomination to final vote in the Senate is 69.6 days — about 2.3 months — according to the Congressional Research Service.

There is ample precedent for nominations and confirmations to the Supreme Court in presidential election years. It’s happened six times since 1900. The most recent nomination and confirmation in an election year was 1940, after Justice Pierce Butler died in office and Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy in January 1940; he was confirmed 12 days later.

The latest election year confirmation came in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes resigned in June and President Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke on July 14. Ten days later he was unanimously confirmed. There has never been one filled later than that ahead of an election.

Given all of this, the 2016 GOP blockade of Garland was truly an anomaly, one which McConnell now seems keen to keep that way if given the chance.

Swing Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have each recently told media they do not believe a vote should be taken. Murkowski told Alaska Public Radio on Friday, prior to Ginsburg’s death, that no votes should be taken, while Collins told The New York Times’ Jonathon Martin earlier this month that it was “too close” to seat a justice in October.

Trump allies have already lined up behind the idea of quickly confirming a replacement. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “I believe the president should next week nominate a successor to the court. I think it’s critical the Senate takes up and confirms the successor before Election Day.”

Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor who previously clerked for Scalia, was confirmed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in October 2017.

Here’s a list of other potential nominees based on ABC News reporting:

Judge Joan Larsen

Larsen was confirmed to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati in October 2017 and previously served on the Michigan Supreme Court. She is a University of Michigan law professor, and, like Barrett, she also clerked for Scalia.

Judge Amul Thapar

Thapar was confirmed to the 6th Circuit in May 2017 and was previously federal judge in Kentucky before Trump nominated him to the 6th Circuit.

Judge Raymond Kethledge

Kethledge was confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in 2008 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. He is a former clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and a former in-house lawyer at Ford Motor.

Judge Britt Grant

Grant was confirmed last July to the 11th Circuit at Atlanta. She previously was a Georgia Supreme Court justice, a Georgia solicitor general and a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.

Judge Thomas Hardiman

Hardiman, of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia, was the first person in his family to attend college, and he helped pay for his Georgetown University law degree by driving a taxi.

He was also a top contender for the first two vacancies under President Trump.

Judge Neomi Rao

Rao, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, is a Trump appointee who holds the seat previously occupied by Brett M. Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She recently wrote the opinion ordering the dismissal of the case prosecuting Michael Flynn.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Senza categoria, Unione Europea

Germania & Cina. Inversione di rotta sui ‘diritti umani’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-07-19.

Gufo

«I’m not the world’s headteacher of morality»

*


«Deutsche Welle or DW is a German government-funded public international broadcaster. The service is available in 30 languages. DW’s satellite television service consists of channels in English, German, Spanish, and Arabic. While funded by the German government, the work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act, meaning that content is intended to be independent of government influence.» [Fonte]

Di fatto, almeno fino a pochi mesi or sono, DW era feudo incontrastato dei liberal socialisti. Negli ultimi mesi si è lentamente discostato dell’ideologia liberal, anche se al momento questa matrice culturale ed operativa è ancora fortemente radicata.

Gli articoli che stanno uscendo in Germania editi dal Deutsche Welle assumono quindi la dimensione di warning governativi, verosimilmente ascrivibili al fatto che la Union, Cdu e Csu, sono adesso quotate attorno al 40% nelle prospezioni di propensione al voto.

* * * * * * *

Germania. Merkel. Una personalità sdoppiata. Si scaglia contro la Cina e poi la supplica.

«German politicians and rights groups cautioned that boosting economic ties cannot come at the expense of human rights»

«Merkel emphasizing “Germany’s interest in rule-based and free multi-lateral trade”»

«Merkel emphasized that China needs to take further steps to open up its market and give equal treatment to foreign companies»

«Prior to the talks, Merkel faced pressure from human rights groups and German politicians — including within her own party — to take a strong stance against China’s clampdown on Hong Kong.»

*

«With the COVID-19 crisis wreaking economic havoc, Germany is eager to reboot trade with China»

«The chancellor “highlighted the need for further steps on market access … and equal treatment of foreign companies,”»

* * *

Dopo aver mazzolato per benino i cinesi, Frau Merkel implora supplice che la Cina riapra alle aziende tedesche, concedendo loro ampia libertà di azione ed eguale trattamento.

* * * * * * *

Adesso il ministro per l’economia, Peter Altmaier, rincara la dose.

«China’s so-called Hong Kong security law sparked outcry with many fearing it will infringe on human rights»

«Germany won’t sever its trade relationship with China over it»

«Economy and Energy Minister Peter Altmaier defended Germany’s continuing trade relationship with China, following the passing of a controversial new security bill in Hong Kong»

«It has always been the policy of the Western international community, including the EU, that international trade relations cannot be based solely on how democratic a country is»

«The bill sparked a wave of criticism and concern on the part of several world leaders, including the European Union chiefs»

«The protection of, and adherence to human rights remained the government’s highest priority, and this also applied to China, Altmaier stressed»

«I’m not the world’s headteacher of morality»

* * * * * * *

Gli affari sono affari.

Alla fine anche il ministro tedesco deve ammettere che non è il capo della morale nel mondo.

Si resta curiosi di come potrà spiegarlo agli amici socialdemocratici ed ai Grüne.

*


Hong Kong: German minister defends China ties.

China’s so-called Hong Kong security law sparked outcry with many fearing it will infringe on human rights. Germany won’t sever its trade relationship with China over it, says Economy Minister Peter Altmaier.

Economy and Energy Minister Peter Altmaier defended Germany’s continuing trade relationship with China, following the passing of a controversial new security bill in Hong Kong.

“It has always been the policy of the Western international community, including the EU, that international trade relations cannot be based solely on how democratic a country is,” Altmaier told national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

“We have never done that,” he stressed, adding this was not even official policy in the times of Willy Brandt or Joschka Fischer – Germany’s former Social Democratic chancellor and Green party foreign minister respectively.

With regard to Sino-German relations, Berlin has long adhered to the principle of “change through trade” (“Wandel durch Handel” in German), hoping that increased business ties may lead to more democratic structures in China.

China implemented Hong Kong’s so-called national security law at the end of June that covers offenses such as succession, subversion of state power, local terrorist activities and collaborating with foreign forces to endanger national security. It also gives China greater legal jurisdiction in the semi-autonomous territory.

The bill sparked a wave of criticism and concern on the part of several world leaders, including the European Union chiefs. Critics fear it will quash dissent and jeopardize Hong Kong’s special status within China.

Chinese authorities have defended the law, saying it is a necessary measure in response to the turbulent, sometimes violent, pro-democracy protests in 2019 and to prevent similar protests in future.

Human rights still a priority

The protection of, and adherence to human rights remained the government’s highest priority, and this also applied to China, Altmaier stressed.

“I’m not the world’s headteacher of morality, but I am convinced that countries like China will only be successful in the long term if fundamental principles of the rule of law are guaranteed.”

Germany to hold talks

Germany plans to hold talks with German businesses in Hong Kong. “We should help ensure that these companies as well as their employees – regardless of nationality – are not at risk,” the economy minister said.

The German government has invited China’s ambassador, Wu Ken, to the Foreign Ministry for discussions on Friday.

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

Trump. Ordine esecutivo di ricostruzione dei monumenti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-07-12.

2020-07-06__Trump Executi Order 013

L’Executive order

Executive Order on Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes

prevede la istituzione di un National Garden che racchiuda statue esteticamente belle di tutti i grandi personaggi che nel passato hanno fatto grande l’America.

Espressamente nominati sono John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.

Si noti il ricordo a Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton ed Audie Murphy, il soldato più decorato della seconda guerra mondiale.

Ma Mr Trump ricorda esplicitamente anche Cristoforo Colombo, Junipero Serra e il Marchese de La Fayette: non erano americani, ma concorsero sostanzialmente ad erigere ciò che poi saranno gli Stati Uniti.

* * * * * * *

Manifestanti gettano in mare la statua di Colombo. Trump: “Nazisti”

«È accaduto a Baltimora, vandalizzati monumenti all’esploratore italiano anche in altre città. Il presidente degli Stati Uniti d’America annuncia misure per proteggerne la figura: “Difenderemo lo stile di vita che portò in America” ….

Un gruppo di manifestanti che protestavano per la morte dell’afroamericano George Floyd ha rovesciato e gettato in mare la statua di Cristoforo Colombo a Baltimora, in Maryland. Nei video diffusi sul web si vedono i manifestanti che chiedevano la rimozione di tutte le statue dedicate a Colombo nel Paese, tirare giù con delle corde il monumento dedicato all’esploratore italiano indicato come responsabile per il genocidio e lo sfruttamento delle popolazioni native nelle Americhe. Altre statue di Colombo, riferisce Fox News, sono state rovesciate o vandalizzate a Miami, Richmond, St. Paul e Boston, dove è stata decapitata.»

*

Di questi tempi, questo Executive Order è un atto di grande coraggio e responsabilità.

La democrazia la si esplica votando nelle urne alle elezioni. Indi, la maggioranza governa e la minoranza si adegua.

Qualsiasi comportamento al di fuori di questi semplici canoni è tutto tranne che democrazia: è la violenta tirannide di una minoranza che è determinata ad imporre la propria volontà alla maggioranza.

Le violente dimostrazioni di piazza altro non sono che la dimostrazione lampante della mentalità dittatoriale dei dimostranti. Mr Trump li ha definiti «nazisti», ossia quelli che, inter alias, fecero i falò dei libri, ivi compresi i lavori di Albert Einstein.

Non solo.

Un popolo si regge fortificato dal ricordo della sua storia e dei suoi grandi personaggi. Questi dovrebbero essere accuratamente studiati ed inquadrati nel momento storico in cui vissero ed operarono.

Il tragico è che codesti facinorosi violenti godono della protezione politica di un grande partito americano.

Le parole usate da Mr Trump indicano un vivo senso della storia ed un intrinseco rispetto dei canoni democratici.

«Difenderemo, proteggeremo e preserveremo lo stile di vita americano iniziato nel 1492 con la scoperta dell’America da parte di Cristoforo Colombo e insieme combatteremo per il sogno americano …. Non permetteremo alla folla arrabbiata di buttare giù le nostre statue, cancellare la nostra storia, indottrinare i nostri bambini e calpestare le nostre libertà»

Già.

Ma i liberal democratici odiano la libertà degli altri.

* * * * * * *


«Section 1.  Purpose.  America owes its present greatness to its past sacrifices.  Because the past is always at risk of being forgotten, monuments will always be needed to honor those who came before.  Since the time of our founding, Americans have raised monuments to our greatest citizens.  In 1784, the legislature of Virginia commissioned the earliest statue of George Washington, a “monument of affection and gratitude” to a man who “unit[ed] to the endowment[s] of the Hero the virtues of the Patriot” and gave to the world “an Immortal Example of true Glory.”  I Res. H. Del. (June 24, 1784).  In our public parks and plazas, we have erected statues of great Americans who, through acts of wisdom and daring, built and preserved for us a republic of ordered liberty»

«These statues are silent teachers in solid form of stone and metal.  They preserve the memory of our American story and stir in us a spirit of responsibility for the chapters yet unwritten.  These works of art call forth gratitude for the accomplishments and sacrifices of our exceptional fellow citizens who, despite their flaws, placed their virtues, their talents, and their lives in the service of our Nation.  These monuments express our noblest ideals:  respect for our ancestors, love of freedom, and striving for a more perfect union.  They are works of beauty, created as enduring tributes.  In preserving them, we show reverence for our past, we dignify our present, and we inspire those who are to come. To build a monument is to ratify our shared national project.»

«To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance.  In recent weeks, in the midst of protests across America, many monuments have been vandalized or destroyed.  Some local governments have responded by taking their monuments down.  Among others, monuments to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Scott Key, Ulysses S. Grant, leaders of the abolitionist movement, the first all-volunteer African-American regiment of the Union Army in the Civil War, and American soldiers killed in the First and Second World Wars have been vandalized, destroyed, or removed»

«My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory.  In the face of such acts of destruction, it is our responsibility as Americans to stand strong against this violence, and to peacefully transmit our great national story to future generations through newly commissioned monuments to American heroes»

«Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes.  (a)  There is hereby established the Interagency Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes (Task Force).  The Task Force shall be chaired by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)»

«Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Task Force shall submit a report to the President through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy that proposes options for the creation of the National Garden, including potential locations for the site.»

«The National Garden should be composed of statues, including statues of John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright»

«Statues should depict historically significant Americans, as that term is defined in section 7 of this order, who have contributed positively to America throughout our history.  Examples include:  the Founding Fathers, those who fought for the abolition of slavery or participated in the underground railroad, heroes of the United States Armed Forces, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, scientists and inventors, entrepreneurs, civil rights leaders, missionaries and religious leaders, pioneers and explorers, police officers and firefighters killed or injured in the line of duty, labor leaders, advocates for the poor and disadvantaged, opponents of national socialism or international socialism, former Presidents of the United States and other elected officials, judges and justices, astronauts, authors, intellectuals, artists, and teachers.»

«None will have lived perfect lives, but all will be worth honoring, remembering, and studying»

«All statues in the National Garden should be lifelike or realistic representations of the persons they depict, not abstract or modernist representations»

«Such works of art should be designed to be appreciated by the general public and by those who use and interact with Federal buildings»

«Definition.  The term “historically significant American” means an individual who was, or became, an American citizen and was a public figure who made substantive contributions to America’s public life or otherwise had a substantive effect on America’s history.  The phrase also includes public figures such as Christopher Columbus, Junipero Serra, and the Marquis de La Fayette, who lived prior to or during the American Revolution and were not American citizens, but who made substantive historical contributions to the discovery, development, or independence of the future United States»

* * * * * * *


The White House. Executive Order on Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  America owes its present greatness to its past sacrifices.  Because the past is always at risk of being forgotten, monuments will always be needed to honor those who came before.  Since the time of our founding, Americans have raised monuments to our greatest citizens.  In 1784, the legislature of Virginia commissioned the earliest statue of George Washington, a “monument of affection and gratitude” to a man who “unit[ed] to the endowment[s] of the Hero the virtues of the Patriot” and gave to the world “an Immortal Example of true Glory.”  I Res. H. Del. (June 24, 1784).  In our public parks and plazas, we have erected statues of great Americans who, through acts of wisdom and daring, built and preserved for us a republic of ordered liberty.

These statues are silent teachers in solid form of stone and metal.  They preserve the memory of our American story and stir in us a spirit of responsibility for the chapters yet unwritten.  These works of art call forth gratitude for the accomplishments and sacrifices of our exceptional fellow citizens who, despite their flaws, placed their virtues, their talents, and their lives in the service of our Nation.  These monuments express our noblest ideals:  respect for our ancestors, love of freedom, and striving for a more perfect union.  They are works of beauty, created as enduring tributes.  In preserving them, we show reverence for our past, we dignify our present, and we inspire those who are to come.  To build a monument is to ratify our shared national project.

To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance.  In recent weeks, in the midst of protests across America, many monuments have been vandalized or destroyed.  Some local governments have responded by taking their monuments down.  Among others, monuments to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Scott Key, Ulysses S. Grant, leaders of the abolitionist movement, the first all-volunteer African-American regiment of the Union Army in the Civil War, and American soldiers killed in the First and Second World Wars have been vandalized, destroyed, or removed.

These statues are not ours alone, to be discarded at the whim of those inflamed by fashionable political passions; they belong to generations that have come before us and to generations yet unborn.  My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory.  In the face of such acts of destruction, it is our responsibility as Americans to stand strong against this violence, and to peacefully transmit our great national story to future generations through newly commissioned monuments to American heroes.

Sec. 2.  Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes.  (a)  There is hereby established the Interagency Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes (Task Force).  The Task Force shall be chaired by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), and shall include the following additional members:

(i)    the Administrator of General Services (Administrator);

(ii)   the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA);

(iii)  the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH);

(iv)   the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP); and

(v)    any officers or employees of any executive department or agency (agency) designated by the President or the Secretary.

(b)  The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support as may be necessary for the performance and functions of the Task Force.  The Secretary shall designate an official of the Department of the Interior to serve as the Executive Director of the Task Force, responsible for coordinating its day-to-day activities.

(c)  The Chairpersons of the NEA and NEH and the Chairman of the ACHP shall establish cross-department initiatives within the NEA, NEH, and ACHP, respectively, to advance the purposes of the Task Force and this order and to coordinate relevant agency operations with the Task Force.

Sec. 3.  National Garden of American Heroes.  (a)  It shall be the policy of the United States to establish a statuary park named the National Garden of American Heroes (National Garden).

(b)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Task Force shall submit a report to the President through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy that proposes options for the creation of the National Garden, including potential locations for the site.  In identifying options, the Task Force shall:

(i)    strive to open the National Garden expeditiously;

(ii)   evaluate the feasibility of creating the National Garden through a variety of potential avenues, including existing agency authorities and appropriations; and

(iii)  consider the availability of authority to encourage and accept the donation or loan of statues by States, localities, civic organizations, businesses, religious organizations, and individuals, for display at the National Garden.

(c)  In addition to the requirements of subsection 3(b) of this order, the proposed options for the National Garden should adhere to the criteria described in subsections (c)(i) through (c)(vi) of this section.

(i)    The National Garden should be composed of statues, including statues of John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.

(ii)   The National Garden should be opened for public access prior to the 250th anniversary of the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.

(iii)  Statues should depict historically significant Americans, as that term is defined in section 7 of this order, who have contributed positively to America throughout our history.  Examples include:  the Founding Fathers, those who fought for the abolition of slavery or participated in the underground railroad, heroes of the United States Armed Forces, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, scientists and inventors, entrepreneurs, civil rights leaders, missionaries and religious leaders, pioneers and explorers, police officers and firefighters killed or injured in the line of duty, labor leaders, advocates for the poor and disadvantaged, opponents of national socialism or international socialism, former Presidents of the United States and other elected officials, judges and justices, astronauts, authors, intellectuals, artists, and teachers.  None will have lived perfect lives, but all will be worth honoring, remembering, and studying.

(iv)   All statues in the National Garden should be lifelike or realistic representations of the persons they depict, not abstract or modernist representations.

(v)    The National Garden should be located on a site of natural beauty that enables visitors to enjoy nature, walk among the statues, and be inspired to learn about great figures of America’s history.  The site should be proximate to at least one major population center, and the site should not cause significant disruption to the local community.

(vi)   As part of its civic education mission, the National Garden should also separately maintain a collection of statues for temporary display at appropriate sites around the United States that are accessible to the general public.

Sec. 4.  Commissioning of New Statues and Works of Art.  (a)  The Task Force shall examine the appropriations authority of the agencies represented on it in light of the purpose and policy of this order.  Based on its examination of relevant authorities, the Task Force shall make recommendations for the use of these agencies’ appropriations.

(b)  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law and the other provisions of this order, Task Force agencies that are authorized to provide for the commissioning of statues or monuments shall, in expending funds, give priority to projects involving the commissioning of publicly accessible statues of persons meeting the criteria described in section 3(b)(iii) of this order, with particular preference for statues of the Founding Fathers, former Presidents of the United States, leading abolitionists, and individuals involved in the discovery of America.

(c)  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, these agencies shall prioritize projects that will result in the installation of a statue as described in subsection (b) of this section in a community where a statue depicting a historically significant American was removed or destroyed in conjunction with the events described in section 1 of this order.

(d)  After consulting with the Task Force, the Administrator of General Services shall promptly revise and thereafter operate the General Service Administration’s (GSA’s) Art in Architecture (AIA) Policies and Procedures, GSA Acquisition Letter V-10-01, and Part 102-77 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, to prioritize the commission of works of art that portray historically significant Americans or events of American historical significance or illustrate the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.  Priority should be given to public-facing monuments to former Presidents of the United States and to individuals and events relating to the discovery of America, the founding of the United States, and the abolition of slavery.  Such works of art should be designed to be appreciated by the general public and by those who use and interact with Federal buildings.  Priority should be given to this policy above other policies contained in part 102-77 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, and revisions made pursuant to this subsection shall be made to supersede any regulatory provisions of AIA that may conflict with or otherwise impede advancing the purposes of this subsection.

(e)  When a statue or work of art commissioned pursuant to this section is meant to depict a historically significant American, the statue or work of art shall be a lifelike or realistic representation of that person, not an abstract or modernist representation.

Sec. 5.  Educational Programming.  The Chairperson of the NEH shall prioritize the allocation of funding to programs and projects that educate Americans about the founding documents and founding ideals of the United States, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with applicable law, including section 956 of title 20, United States Code.  The founding documents include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.  The founding ideals include equality under the law, respect for inalienable individual rights, and representative self-government.  Within 90 days of the conclusion of each Fiscal Year from 2021 through 2026, the Chairperson shall submit a report to the President through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy that identifies funding allocated to programs and projects pursuant to this section.

Sec. 6.  Protection of National Garden and Statues Commissioned Pursuant to this Order.  The Attorney General shall apply section 3 of Executive Order 13933 of June 26, 2020 (Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence), with respect to violations of Federal law regarding the National Garden and all statues commissioned pursuant to this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  The term “historically significant American” means an individual who was, or became, an American citizen and was a public figure who made substantive contributions to America’s public life or otherwise had a substantive effect on America’s history.  The phrase also includes public figures such as Christopher Columbus, Junipero Serra, and the Marquis de La Fayette, who lived prior to or during the American Revolution and were not American citizens, but who made substantive historical contributions to the discovery, development, or independence of the future United States.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 3, 2020.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Putin, Senza categoria

Putin asfalta Megyn Kelly. Una intervista goduriosa, da risentirsi e rivedersi con cura.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-04-09.

2020-04-02__Megyn Kelly 001

Mrs Megyn Kelly è stata anchorwoman di Fox News Channel per più di una decina di anni. Il 6 gennaio 2017 è stata rimossa dai palinsesti ed il 26 ottobre dell’anno successivo Nbc la ha licenziata a causa delle sue dichiarazioni razziste.

Il due giugno 2017 Mrs Megyn Kelly partecipa come moderatrice alla tavola rotonda del Petersburg International Economic Forum, ed intervista Mr. Putin, di fronte ad una platea internazionale di oltre mille persone.

*

Vladimir Putin distrugge la giornalista pagata per metterlo al muro.

Megyn Kelly Moderates Key Session Of St. Petersburg International Economic Forum | NBC News

*

Risentire con cura questa registrazione ci consente di comprendere meglio la dinamica della politica interna americana.

Mr Putin fa impietosamente a pezzi Mrs Megyn Kelly, la asfalta in lungo ed in largo: in breve, le fa fare la figura dell’oca ammaestrata. E, diciamolo francamente, non ha nemmeno calcato la mano.

Ma distruggendo Mrs Megyn Kelly Mr Putin ha distrutto le tesi liberal democratiche.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Bloomberg. Il candidato democratico misogino, sessista, uno sparviero.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-24.

palpeggiare-divieto-palpeggiare

Parole e fatti che sotto ogni luna farebbero sorridere, per i liberal democratici sono peccati capitali irredimibili, punibili con la sedia elettrica anche se non corroborati da prove probanti: basta la denuncia.

Adesso è finito sulla graticola mediatica Mr Bloomberg, candidato alla White House, ed è persino la Cnn a formulare le accuse in un articolo inusitatamente lungo e dettagliato.

«Allegations of misogynistic and sexist comments loom over Michael Bloomberg’s first 2020 debate»

«They include claims from the 1990s that prior to a male colleague’s wedding, Bloomberg told a group of female employees to “line up to give him a blow job as a wedding present”; that he would regularly direct comments like “look at that nice piece of ass” at women in the office; and that upon learning that a female employee was expecting a baby, he responded: “Kill it!” »

«Bloomberg, through his representatives, has denied making the “kill it” comment and other comments laid out in at least two lawsuits, but has also acknowledged that he has made comments that do not align with his values»

«And his alleged offensive comments about women could make for particularly charged moments in light of the #MeToo movement»

«Further complicating matters is the fact that Democrats have been outspoken in calling out the numerous accusations of sexual harassment and assault made against Donald Trump»

«CNN examined two lawsuits that paint a vivid picture of the billionaire as having allegedly condoned and promoted misogyny and sexism in the workplace.»

«Sekiko Sakai Garrison was a sales representative at Bloomberg LP until she was terminated in May of 1995, and she sued Bloomberg in 1997 …. Bloomberg e altri dirigenti maschi dell’azienda umiliavano e molestavano sessualmente le colleghe»

«the Bloomberg LP office was described in the suit as a boy’s club where career advancement for women depended heavily on their “sex appeal”»

«Wearing short skirts was said by these male executives»

«Women sales persons who were less attractive or who were married were ridiculed and new mothers and recently married women lost lucrative portions of their sales territory»

«Bloomberg also uttered comments like, “That’s a great piece of ass” in the presence of colleagues»

«”You still dating your boyfriend? You giving him good blow jobs?”»

«When Garrison eventually informed Bloomberg that she was pregnant in 1995, she alleged that he responded: “Kill it!”»

«Mary Ann Olszewski, a former Bloomberg LP sales representative who worked at the firm from 1993 to 1995, sued the company and one of its then-executives whom she accused of rape. In a 1997 deposition, Olszewski said she was “regularly” on the receiving end of harassing looks from Bloomberg»

«Olszewski also claimed that Bloomberg often used crude language in the office. “Look at that nice piece of ass,”»

«When you’re a woman who worked at Bloomberg, you had to look beautiful»

«When Bloomberg deemed a woman attractive, he would make remarks like, “I could have her any time,”»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di essere chiari.

Nessuno sano di mente si sognerebbe mai di vedere in simili accuse un alcunché di importante. Ma mica tutti sono psichicamente normali.

Il problema consiste nel fatto che per i liberal democratici questi sono reati imprescrittibili, da ritenersi reali anche in assenza di prove ma di sole denuncie, reati peggiori degli omicidi volontari.

E l’aspetto peggiore e che i giudici liberal condannano dei poveracci usando questo metro.

Ma da un esame anche superficiale emerge come ad essere denunciati siano quasi esclusivamente persone abbienti, dalle quali poter ottenere risarcimenti milionari. Abbienti, ma non troppo: gli straricchi hanno mezzi di stupefacente portata.

*


Cnn. Allegations of misogynistic and sexist comments loom over Michael Bloomberg’s first 2020 debate

When Michael Bloomberg takes the 2020 debate stage for the first time Wednesday night, allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior will loom over the former New York City Mayor.

They include claims from the 1990s that prior to a male colleague’s wedding, Bloomberg told a group of female employees to “line up to give him a blow job as a wedding present”; that he would regularly direct comments like “look at that nice piece of ass” at women in the office; and that upon learning that a female employee was expecting a baby, he responded: “Kill it!”

Bloomberg, through his representatives, has denied making the “kill it” comment and other comments laid out in at least two lawsuits, but has also acknowledged that he has made comments that do not align with his values.

The renewed criticism comes as the 78-year-old is mounting an unconventional campaign for the White House, choosing to forego the four early states and targeting the delegates-rich Super Tuesday contests and beyond. The billionaire has already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the race, blanketing the country with more than $400 million on television, radio and digital advertisements. Those efforts appear to be working for now: Bloomberg has risen in recent national polls, notably eating into support for former Vice President Joe Biden.

But as Bloomberg’s candidacy gains traction, his decades-long record as a business titan and three terms as mayor of New York City is garnering fresh scrutiny, including his legacy of fostering the deeply controversial policing tactic of “stop and frisk.” And his alleged offensive comments about women could make for particularly charged moments in light of the #MeToo movement.

Democratic Party leaders and allies are confronting uncomfortable questions about Bloomberg’s past conduct, but there have not yet been widespread statements of condemnation against the former mayor. Further complicating matters is the fact that Democrats have been outspoken in calling out the numerous accusations of sexual harassment and assault made against Donald Trump. Trump has denied those allegations.

The Bloomberg campaign is responding to questions about his past behavior in part by highlighting his history of promoting women to senior roles both as a businessman and mayor.

Campaign chairwoman Patricia Harris said as a part of a lengthy statement: “In any large organization, there are going to be complaints — but Mike has never tolerated any kind of discrimination or harassment, and he’s created cultures that are all about equality and inclusion. Anyone who works hard and performs well is going to be rewarded, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or anything else.”

A boy’s club

CNN examined two lawsuits that paint a vivid picture of the billionaire as having allegedly condoned and promoted misogyny and sexism in the workplace.

Sekiko Sakai Garrison was a sales representative at Bloomberg LP until she was terminated in May of 1995, and she sued Bloomberg in 1997. The lengthy complaint detailed the many ways in which Garrison said Bloomberg and other male executives at the company sexually demeaned and harassed female colleagues. Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said that Bloomberg “did not make any of the statements alleged in the Sekiko Garrison case.”

In that lawsuit, the Bloomberg LP office was described in the suit as a boy’s club where career advancement for women depended heavily on their “sex appeal.” “Wearing short skirts was said by these male executives, and others, to be an advantage for promotion. Women who applied for sales positions were required to meet criteria of sex appeal,” Garrison’s complaint said. “Women sales persons who were less attractive or who were married were ridiculed and new mothers and recently married women lost lucrative portions of their sales territory, were denied business opportunities, had their pay cut and received inferior bonuses as compared to their male counterparts.”

That culture of pervasive harassment stemmed directly from the man at the top of the firm, Garrison alleged.

According to her complaint, Bloomberg so frequently said the words “I’d f**k that in a second” in reference to women that it was shortened to “in a second.” Bloomberg also uttered comments like, “That’s a great piece of ass” in the presence of colleagues, she said.

Garrison laid out multiple allegations of Bloomberg directly targeting her. In 1993, Bloomberg purportedly said to Garrison: “You still dating your boyfriend? You giving him good blow jobs?

And when Garrison got engaged around that time, Bloomberg saw her ring and allegedly said: “What, is the guy dumb and blind? What the hell is he marrying you for?”

When Garrison eventually informed Bloomberg that she was pregnant in 1995, she alleged that he responded: “Kill it!”

“Plaintiff asked Bloomberg to repeat himself, and again he said, ‘Kill it!’ and muttered, ‘Great! Number 16!’ suggesting to plaintiff his unhappiness that sixteen women in the Company had maternity-related status,” the complaint said. “Then he walked away.”

The lawsuit has been previously been reported on by multiple outlets. A former Bloomberg employee, David Zielenziger, told the Washington Post in a story published over the weekend that he had witnessed Bloomberg’s conversation with Garrison. That lawsuit was ultimately settled on undisclosed terms.

“In his testimony in the case, Mike said: ‘I never said those words and there would be no reason to do so, it’s ridiculous and an outrage,” Loeser said. “Mike openly admits that his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life and some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.”

Bonnie Josephs, a lawyer who initially represented Garrison, told CNN: “My experience of her complaint was that it was well-founded and that it was credible.” Neal Brickman, a lawyer who represented Garrison after Josephs, did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Feeling someone looking at me’

Mary Ann Olszewski, a former Bloomberg LP sales representative who worked at the firm from 1993 to 1995, sued the company and one of its then-executives whom she accused of rape. In a 1997 deposition, Olszewski said she was “regularly” on the receiving end of harassing looks from Bloomberg.

She said that on at least 20 occasions, she experienced “reaching up for things and feeling someone looking at me, turning and seeing Mike Bloomberg directly looking at my skirt going up and giving me a little look, like a sexual look.”

Olszewski also claimed that Bloomberg often used crude language in the office. “Look at that nice piece of ass,” Olszewski recalled Bloomberg saying about a colleague.

At one meeting, Olszewski alleged, Bloomberg openly disparaged a woman he was dating at the time, making a “condescending” joke about how “I need to be deaf, blind and dumb” to go out with her.

The Village Voice reported in 2001 on details of Bloomberg’s deposition in this lawsuit (CNN was only able to obtain a part of the deposition). The media executive said, according to the Village Voice, that he would believe a rape charge only if it was backed up by an “unimpeachable third-party” witness.

Loeser, the Bloomberg spokesperson, told CNN: “It was a contentious deposition and this is not what Mike believes.”

The Olszewski case was closed in 2001 after Olszewski’s legal team missed a filing deadline. Olszewski’s lawyer at the time did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

One former senior Bloomberg LP employee who worked closely with Bloomberg told CNN in an interview that both Bloomberg’s behavior and the hostile work environment that Garrison and Olszewski described in the two lawsuits were consistent with what they also witnessed during their tenure at the company.

“When you’re a woman who worked at Bloomberg, you had to look beautiful. You had to be gorgeous,” said the former employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If you were overweight, they would call you horrible names. It’s mean stuff.”

One such commonly used nickname that Bloomberg and his colleagues used, according to this ex-employee, was “SFU” — abbreviation for “Short, Fat and Ugly.”

This person also described Bloomberg’s penchant for denigrating pregnant women in the office, including by making comments like, “I didn’t get her pregnant, but I could have.” When Bloomberg deemed a woman attractive, he would make remarks like, “I could have her any time,” they said.

And those kinds of remarks are not just rooted in allegations from the distant past.

Bloomberg was described by one reporter as making crude remarks about women’s looks when he was New York City’s mayor.

And Bloomberg also raised eyebrows in late 2018 when in an interview with The New York Times, he said about allegations leveled against disgraced TV anchor Charlie Rose: “I don’t know how true all of it is.” Rose taped his namesake show at Bloomberg studios, and Bloomberg LP was named as a defendant in one of the lawsuits brought against the former host.

CBS and PBS fired Rose in November of 2017 after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, which Rose has denied.

“We never had a complaint, whatsoever, and when I read some of the stuff, I was surprised, I will say,” Bloomberg told the Times. “But I never saw anything and we have no record, we’ve checked very carefully.”