Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Israele nega l’ingresso a due congressiste Usa.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-18.

2019-08-18__Israele__001

Il problema è alquanto semplice.

Dalla fine della guerra mondiale i membri del Congresso americano sono abituati a poter viaggiare liberamente in tutto il mondo, entrando anche nei paesi che avessero criticato aspramente, emettendone sentenze non solo politiche ma anche morali.

Erano anche abituati ad intrattenere stretti rapporti con i partiti o le fazioni che erano alla opposizione, anche se queste componenti fossero state francamente rivoluzionarie.

Questa costumanza trae origine solo nello sviluppo storico degli eventi, non avendo base alcuna nel diritto internazionale. Era semplicemente il power that be.

Adesso i tempi sembrerebbero essere cambiati.

«Israel is blocking two US Democratic lawmakers, who are prominent critics of the Israeli government, from visiting»

«Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were due to visit the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem next week»

«Both have supported the boycott movement against Israel, but Israeli law allows supporters of the campaign to be banned from visiting»

«Israeli law blocks entrance visas to any foreigner who calls for any type of boycott that targets Israel – either economic, cultural or academic. The law attempts to suppress the “boycott, divest, sanction” movement, which has drawn growing support across Europe and the US»

«They also planned to visit Israeli and Palestinian peace activists and travel to Jerusalem and the West Bank cities of Bethlehem, Ramallah and Hebron. The trip to the West Bank was planned by Miftah, an organisation headed by Palestinian peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.»

Si erano già registrati numerosi precedenti.

«The ban on two foreign dignitaries is rare but not unprecedented. Makarim Wibisono, a UN special rapporteur on human rights, was denied entry in 2015 after Israel said his mandate was anti-Israel.»

«Fouad Ahmad Assadi of Spain’s Socialist Party, was barred from entering Israel last month because he was deemed a threat to national security.»

«The Lebanese-born politician travelled there to participate in the annual Socialist International conference in Tel Aviv and Ramallah – but he was denied entry at Ben Gurion Airport.»

«However, no members of US Congress have been blocked before now. Israel often hosts congressional delegations. Earlier this month, 41 Democrats and 31 Republicans attended a visit sponsored by the AIPAC lobby group»

Se sicuramente l’aver ricevuto sul proprio territorio 41 congressisti democratici e 31 repubblicani sia un segno di non preclusione, aver negato l’ingresso a Mrs Ilhan Omar ed a Ms Rashida Tlaib suona come uno schiaffo scientemente voluto a due persone altamente indesiderate. Ma domandiamoci allora chi siano codeste fanciulle.

Se sicuramente il partito democratico sia libero di far eleggere nei collegi sicuri chiunque esso voglia, altrettanto sicuramente si dovrebbe ammettere che il dissenso con la linea politica governativa dovrebbe essere espressa in sede parlamentare, cosa giusta e lecita, non però al di fuori dei confini nazionali. Questo non sarebbe più un confronto politico, bensì un boicottaggio, cosa ben differente. L’intelligenza con il nemico è materia di codice penale.

«President Trump, who has a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has frequently feuded with the lawmakers and in remarks widely condemned as racist, told them to “go back” to the countries that their families were from.»

«Ms Tlaib – the first member of the US Congress of Palestinian descent – was born in Michigan, and Ms Omar is from Minnesota but was born in Somalia.»

«After the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted against the boycott against Israel movement in July, Ms Tlaib criticised the country as “racist”.»

«”I can’t stand by and watch this attack on our freedom of speech and the right to boycott the racist policies of the government and the state of Israel,” she said»

«”It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Ms Omar had tweeted in a reference to the US $100 note, leading to allegations that she was using a negative stereotype for Jews. . She later apologised, and said the tweet was meant to criticise lobbyists, not Jews. She also thanked “Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes”.»

* * * * * * *

Il cuore del problema risiede tutto in una frase pronunciata da Mrs Omar.

«After the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted against the boycott against Israel movement in July, Ms Tlaib criticised the country as “racist”.»

Quando una persona ricopre il ruolo di congressista di una delle maggiori nazioni mondiali, ci si aspetterebbe che parlasse ed agisse con grande prudenza ed in accordo con il governo legalmente in carica.

Una cosa è esprimere dissenso anche alle decisioni prese in aula dal proprio partito, ed una totalmente differente passare a terminologie pesanti usando il termine di ‘razzista’

Una cosa è la libertà di parola ed una opposta è la facoltà di insultare e di intrattenere intelligenza con gli avversari.

Gran brutta bestia la superbia quando arriva alla vetta di ottundere le menti, che si ritengono essere depositarie di verità assolute e del diritto di impartire lezioni a chicchessia. Gran brutta bestia la superbia quando porta a cercare imporre la propria volontà quasi che questa fosse caratteristica divina.

Ci si candida a prendere terribili facciate contro la realtà: facciate dalle quali però il superbo nulla impara.


Bbc. 2019-08-16. Israel bars Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from visiting

Israel is blocking two US Democratic lawmakers, who are prominent critics of the Israeli government, from visiting.

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were due to visit the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem next week.

Both have supported the boycott movement against Israel, but Israeli law allows supporters of the campaign to be banned from visiting.

President Trump earlier tweeted it would show “great weakness” if the pair were allowed entry.

Ms Omar described Israel’s move as “an insult to democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation”.

Mr Trump earlier had taken to Twitter to urge that the two lawmakers be blocked from visiting, adding that “they hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds”.

Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib have both been criticised for their stance on Israel – but have denied charges of being anti-Semitic.

Speaking to reporters later on Thursday, Mr Trump said, “I can’t imagine why Israel would let them in.”

Why have they been banned?

Israeli law blocks entrance visas to any foreigner who calls for any type of boycott that targets Israel – either economic, cultural or academic.

The law attempts to suppress the “boycott, divest, sanction” movement, which has drawn growing support across Europe and the US.

Israeli officials had earlier said they would make an exception for the elected US officials, before backtracking.

According to US media, their trip was meant to begin on Sunday, and would include a stop at one of the most sensitive sites in the region – a hilltop plateau in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and Muslims as Haram al-Sharif.

They also planned to visit Israeli and Palestinian peace activists and travel to Jerusalem and the West Bank cities of Bethlehem, Ramallah and Hebron.

The trip to the West Bank was planned by Miftah, an organisation headed by Palestinian peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.

Ms Tlaib was planning to stay for two extra days to visit her grandmother, who lives in a Palestinian village.

Who are they?

President Trump, who has a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has frequently feuded with the lawmakers and in remarks widely condemned as racist, told them to “go back” to the countries that their families were from.

Ms Tlaib – the first member of the US Congress of Palestinian descent – was born in Michigan, and Ms Omar is from Minnesota but was born in Somalia.

After the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted against the boycott against Israel movement in July, Ms Tlaib criticised the country as “racist”.

“I can’t stand by and watch this attack on our freedom of speech and the right to boycott the racist policies of the government and the state of Israel,” she said.

The House also voted to condemn hate speech in a move directed at Ms Omar for her criticism of US support for Israel.

Who is Minnesota’s Somalia-born congresswoman?

Who are the congresswomen known as ‘the squad’?

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Ms Omar had tweeted in a reference to the US $100 note, leading to allegations that she was using a negative stereotype for Jews.

She later apologised, and said the tweet was meant to criticise lobbyists, not Jews. She also thanked “Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes”.

What has Israel said?

A statement from the Israeli interior ministry confirming the ban said it was “inconceivable that those who wish to harm the state of Israel while visiting would be granted entry”.

But only last month Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer said the two Democrats would be permitted to visit “out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America”.

In a statement on Thursday, Mr Netanyahu said “there is no country in the world that respects the US and the American Congress more than Israel.”

“However, the itinerary showed that the congresswomen’s sole intention was to harm Israel.”

What’s the reaction?

The US ambassador to Israel said in a statement that the US “supports and respects the decision of the Government of Israel to deny entry”.

Israel “has every right to protect its borders against those activists in the same manner as it would bar entrants with more conventional weapons,” wrote Ambassador David Friedman.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), said in a tweet while they disagree with the lawmakers’ support for the boycott movement against Israel, they also believe “every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand”.

It was a sentiment echoed by Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who said that while he disagreed with the women, “denying them entry into Israel is a mistake. Being blocked is what they really hoped for all along in order to bolster their attacks against the Jewish state.”

The strategy behind Trump’s condemnation of Ilhan Omar

New Jersey Democrat Congressman Tom Malinowski called the decision “disrespectful to Congress” and said during a cross-party congressional trip to Israel last week officials had assured them their colleagues would be allowed to visit.

“First he tells Congresswoman Tlaib to ‘go back’ to ‘her’ country, and then he tells that country not to let her in,” he tweeted, referring to Mr Trump’s comments.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said “this sad reversal is deeply disappointing”.

She called Israel’s denial “a sign of weakness” and said President Trump’s comments “a sign of ignorance and disrespect”.

Has this happened before?

The ban on two foreign dignitaries is rare but not unprecedented. Makarim Wibisono, a UN special rapporteur on human rights, was denied entry in 2015 after Israel said his mandate was anti-Israel.

Fouad Ahmad Assadi of Spain’s Socialist Party, was barred from entering Israel last month because he was deemed a threat to national security.

The Lebanese-born politician travelled there to participate in the annual Socialist International conference in Tel Aviv and Ramallah – but he was denied entry at Ben Gurion Airport.

However, no members of US Congress have been blocked before now. Israel often hosts congressional delegations. Earlier this month, 41 Democrats and 31 Republicans attended a visit sponsored by the AIPAC lobby group.

——-

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher

Written in every US passport is a message to “all whom it may concern” that the bearer of the document be allowed to pass “without delay or hindrance”. In the case of Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, however, hindrance is exactly what Donald Trump wanted.

An American president urging another nation to deny entry to US citizens, let alone members of Congress, is unusual in the extreme. Viewed in the context of Mr Trump’s ongoing feud with these congresswomen, however, it makes perfect sense. The lines between foreign and domestic policy, between the public actions and personal grievances, have always been blurry with this president.

At the very least, by tweeting before Israel acted, the president boosted his power at the expense of the Israelis, who were left seeming as though they bent to his will.

There’s also plenty of reason for members of Congress to be uncomfortable with the president’s actions. While the White House insists Mr Trump was not encouraging a foreign nation to punish American politicians for their political viewpoints, there is concern that this could limit the access of future congressional delegations to nations they have criticised in the past.

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

Polonia. Elezioni Novembre. Sondaggi. PiS a 272 seggi. Maggioranza assoluta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-13.

2019-07-22__Polonia_001_Percentuali__001

Nel novembre di questo anno la Polonia tornerà alle urne per le elezioni politiche.

Il clima è teso per molteplici motivi.

L’attuale dirigenza dell’Unione Europea odia la Polonia di odio viscerale, perché non si è sottomessa all’ideologia liberal socialista, ha un forte governo identitario sovranista, è paese di spicco nel blocco del Visegrad, ed infine è stato causa efficiente delle debacle di Herr Weber e di Herr Timmermans. Si è ribellata inoltre all’asse francogermanico, avvicinandosi in modo anche plateale agli Stati Uniti ed alla Nato, di cui ospita sul suo territorio armamenti atomici avanzati.

I liberal socialisti europei hanno scatenato da tempo un’intensa battaglia ideologica e politica in Polonia, volta a sottominare le sue radici cristiane, storiche, sociali ed economiche, imponendo, grazie anche ai molti complici stipendiati, una intensa propaganda pro lgbt, e di esecrazione per la riforma della giustizia, che in buona sostanza mette i residui giudici comunisti fuori ruolo. Poi, per ironia del destino, la riforma giudiziaria polacca è la fotocopia del sistema giudiziario tedesco.

I risultati delle recenti elezioni mettono bene in luce l’entità dello scontro e delle forze dispiegate.

Rispetto alle passate elezioni politiche del 25 ottobre 2015, il PiS salirebbe dal 37.6% agli attuali 42.0%. Questa percentuale sarebbe in linea con il 45.4% ottenuto nelle elezioni europee ultime scorse e decisamente migliore del 34.1% ottenuto nelle elezioni amministrative, ove il fattore locale e dei candidati giocava un ruolo pesante. La propaganda ed il denaro dei liberal svolsero un ampio ruolo.

Il diretto avversario del PiS è Piattaforma Civica, PO.

«Civic Platform is a liberal-conservative political party in Poland. Civic Platform came to power following the 2007 general election as the major coalition partner in Poland’s government, with party leader Donald Tusk as Prime Minister of Poland. Tusk was re-elected as Prime Minister in the 2011 general election but stepped down three years later to assume the post of President of the European Council. Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz led the party in the 2015 general election but was defeated by the Law and Justice party. On 16 November 2015 Civic Platform government stepped down after exactly 8 years in power. In 2010 Civic Platform candidate Bronisław Komorowski was elected as President of Poland, but failed in running for re-election in 2015. PO is the second largest party in the Sejm, with 138 seats, and the Senate, with 33 seats. Civic Platform is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP).»

Questa formazione è stimata essere al 27%, contro il 24.1% ottenuto nelle elezioni del 2015. Nelle elezioni amministrative, il PO era arrivato ad ottenere il 38.5% dei suffragi, conquistando così anche molti grandi centri, ma senza sfondare nelle zone rurali. Sono questi sindaci comunisti a permettere le dimostrazioni liberal.

Ma i dati sulle percentuali non tengono conto della resa finale, in base alla legge elettorale.

2019-07-22__Polonia_002__Seggi__001

Ragionando in termini di seggi conquistati, il PiS è proiettato ai 272 seggi, contro i 235 ottenuti nel 2015. Sarebbe una ben solida maggioranza assoluta.

Piattaforma Civica ne conquisterebbe 160, contro i pregressi 138: un avanzamento, sicuramente, ma non di entità tale da scalzare il PiS dalla maggioranza assoluta.

Di qui a novembre possono accadere molti avvenimenti, ma al momento attuale la situazione sembrerebbe essere saldamente in mano del PiS.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Trump. Crollano le richieste dei sussidi di disoccupazione.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-08.

2019-08-08__Bloomberg__001

Se non fosse cosa seria, sarebbe una farsa.

Da lunga pezza la quasi totalità delle rubriche economiche televisive è condotta da giornaliste. Più che di parità di gender si dovrebbe parlare di usbergo delle femmine. Talune sono state in passato anche belloccie.

Ma per disgrazia loro e degli utenti televisivi parlano, e lo fanno con il piglio di chi abbia la scienza infusa.

Adesso hanno capito anche il perché il mercato del lavoro americano stia tirando così bene.

Nonostante la immane iattura di avere per presidente – not my president – Mr Trump, del quale non si dice mai male a sufficienza, grazie alla strenua volontà di resistenza dei liberal democratici, l’economia sta andando più che bene. È grazie alle ferme prese di posizione a difesa dell’aborto, lgbt, etc, che i repubblicani sono quasi completamente scomparsi dai suburbi delle grandi metropoli, con grande sollievo dell’economia. Ma è stata la lotta alla disponibilità delle armi da fuoco a decretare la scomparsa politica di Mr Trump. Sarebbe moribondo.

Ad un Mr Trump calante corrisponderebbe sequenzialmente un’economia in ascesa.

* * *

Questa è l’ultima teoria economica dei liberal, e le speakers di Bloomberg la declinano in tutte le salse. Lo dicono come se spiegassero la teoria dei gravi.

Si faccia presto ad assimilarla, perché domani potrebbero aver cambiato idea.

«femmina è bello se lavora nella dirigenza avversaria», diceva malignamente Mr Putin.

* * *

Riportiamo quindi l’articolo di Reuters, non certo fan di Mr Trump, che sembrerebbe essere almeno decente nel riportare la notizia.

«U.S. weekly jobless claims unexpectedly fall»

«The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, suggesting the labor market remains strong even as the economy is slowing.»

«Concerns over the impact of the bitter trade war between Washington and Beijing on the U.S. economic expansion, the longest on record, prompted the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates last week for the first time since 2008»

«With tensions between the two economic giants escalating in recent days and recession risks rising, financial markets have fully priced in another rate cut next month»

«Expectations for a 50-basis-point cut at the Fed’s Sept. 17-18 policy meeting have also risen»

«While hiring has slowed, the pace of job gains remains well above the roughly 100,000 needed per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population»

«Nonfarm payrolls increased by 164,000 jobs in July, down from 193,000 in June. Job growth over the last three months averaged 140,000 per month, the lowest in nearly two years, compared to 223,000 in 2018. The moderation in employment growth partly reflects a shortage of workers»

«The economy grew at a 2.1% annualized rate in the second quarter, slowing from the first quarter’s brisk 3.1% pace. Growth is seen below a 2.0% rate in the July-September quarter.»

* * * * * * *

Per un evidente refuso, è scappata anche una frase audace:

«The moderation in employment growth partly reflects a shortage of workers»

Quando una nazione è in regime di massima occupazione, più di tanto gli occupati non possono aumentare.


Reuters. 2019-08-08. U.S. weekly jobless claims unexpectedly fall

The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, suggesting the labor market remains strong even as the economy is slowing.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 209,000 for the week ended Aug. 3, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Data for the prior week was revised to show 2,000 more applications received than previously reported.

Last week’s drop in claims pushed them to the lower end of their 193,000-244,000 range for this year. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims would be unchanged at 215,000 in the latest week. The Labor Department said only claims for Idaho were estimated last week.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, edged up 250 to 212,250 last week.

U.S. stock index futures held gains after the release of the data. Prices of U.S. Treasuries dipped while the dollar (DXY) was trading slightly higher.

Claims will be watched over the coming weeks for signs that deteriorating trade relations between the United States and China, which have dimmed the economy’s outlook and roiled financial markets, were spilling over to the labor market.

Concerns over the impact of the bitter trade war between Washington and Beijing on the U.S. economic expansion, the longest on record, prompted the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates last week for the first time since 2008.

With tensions between the two economic giants escalating in recent days and recession risks rising, financial markets have fully priced in another rate cut next month. Expectations for a 50-basis-point cut at the Fed’s Sept. 17-18 policy meeting have also risen.

While hiring has slowed, the pace of job gains remains well above the roughly 100,000 needed per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 164,000 jobs in July, down from 193,000 in June. Job growth over the last three months averaged 140,000 per month, the lowest in nearly two years, compared to 223,000 in 2018. The moderation in employment growth partly reflects a shortage of workers.

The economy grew at a 2.1% annualized rate in the second quarter, slowing from the first quarter’s brisk 3.1% pace. Growth is seen below a 2.0% rate in the July-September quarter.

Thursday’s claims report also showed the number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid dropped 15,000 to 1.68 million for the week ended July 27. The four-week moving average of the so-called continuing claims fell 11,000 to 1.69 million.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Ideologia liberal

Cina. Hong Kong. La pazienza ha un limite.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-07.

Hong Kong 001

Gli stati sono aggettivati ‘sovrani’ perché hanno diritto e capacità a legiferare secondo tradizione e convenienza.

Se giustamente gli stati sono gelosi della propria autonomia e sovranità, è prassi disdicevole che uno stato straniero si impicci nei problemi interni di un altro.

Questo è il classico vizietto dei liberal socialisti, specie quelli europei.

Dal loro punto di vista vorrebbero imporre a tutti il loro credo ideologico che, sotto il nome di diritti umani, contrabbanda i diritti che secondo loro gli altri dovrebbero seguire. Sono davvero dei presuntuosi superbi.

Ad Hong Kong hanno fomentato ogni possibile tipologia di torbidi, ivi compresi dei gay pride ove a sfilare erano in gran parte occidentali in trasferta.

Hong Kong. Guarda guarda chi si rivede

Le fotografie sono inequivocabili.

Hong Kong 002

* * * * * * *

Nessuno stato nazionale può tollerare separazioni e/o scissioni. Negli Stati Uniti il tentativo dette la stura alla Guerra Civile, di questi tempi la Spagna ha usato l’esercito per il problema indipendentista della Catalogna. Ma peri liberal ciò che negli Stati Uniti ed in Spagna era giusto e santo, sarebbe iniquo in Cina.

«China warns Hong Kong protesters not to ‘play with fire’»

«He accused Western “anti-China forces” and “meddling hands behind the scene” of instigating unrest»

«he cited US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who called the protests “a beautiful sight to behold”»

«the UK’s then-foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt who urged an investigation into the use of force by Hong Kong police»

*

Cinesi, gente pratica. Risolto il problema dell’integralismo islamico.

«Chinese authorities in the far-northwestern region of Xinjiang on Wednesday revised legislation to permit the use of “education and training centers” to combat religious extremism.»

«In practice, the centers are internment camps in which as many as 1 million minority Muslims have been placed in the past 12 months»

«The amended legislation states that Chinese regional governments “can set up vocational education and training centers … to educate and transform those who have been influenced by extremism.”»

«besides teaching the Mandarin language and providing vocational skills, the centers are now directed to provide “ideological education, psychological rehabilitation and behavior correction” under the new clause»

*

Nel laogai c’è posto anche per i ribelli di Hong Kong,


China warns Hong Kong protesters not to ‘play with fire’

China has issued a strong warning to Hong Kong’s protesters, saying their attempts “to play with fire will only backfire”.

A spokesman for China’s top policy office on Hong Kong told protesters not to “underestimate the firm resolve [of] the central government”.

Hong Kong has seen nine consecutive weeks of anti-government protests.

On Monday, a call for a general strike caused severe disruption, and more than 200 flights were cancelled.

Protesters want an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality, the complete withdrawal of a controversial extradition bill, and the resignation of Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam.

The demonstrations have frequently ended in violent clashes with police. They are seen as a challenge to Beijing’s authority in the territory – and a reflection of how many Hong Kongers fear that their freedoms are being eroded.

The former British colony is part of China but enjoys unique freedoms not seen on the mainland.

What did China say, and why is it significant?

The “radical demonstrations” have pushed Hong Kong “to the verge of a very dangerous situation”, said Yang Guang, a spokesman for the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO).

He warned the protesters not to “mistake restraint for weakness”.

Attempts to force Ms Lam to resign “will lead nowhere”, he said, adding that the protests had had a “serious impact” on Hong Kong’s economy.

It is one of the strongest warnings Beijing has issued over the protests so far. The HKMAO rarely holds news conferences on Hong Kong – but this is its second briefing in two weeks.

Mr Yang said that “radical and violent” forces were at the forefront of the protests, while “some misled but well intentioned” citizens were caught in the middle.

He accused Western “anti-China forces” and “meddling hands behind the scene” of instigating unrest.

As examples, he cited US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who called the protests “a beautiful sight to behold”, and the UK’s then-foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt who urged an investigation into the use of force by Hong Kong police.

However, a pro-democracy politician, Lam Cheuk-ting, told the BBC there were no “external forces” behind the protests.

“It is not a movement organised by any overseas government but the Hong Kong people voluntarily,” he said.

Observers say the protests have largely appeared leaderless and unpredictable, involving “flash mob” style civil disobedience and voting through social media apps.

Could the military get involved?

While China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has troops stationed in Hong Kong, they are not expected to interfere in local issues – although the law does permit Hong Kong’s government to request their assistance for maintaining public order, or disaster relief.

During the news conference, Mr Yang was asked whether the Chinese military could get involved – but said Beijing was confident that Hong Kong police could restore order.

Last week, China’s army in Hong Kong prompted unease by posting a video of soldiers conducting anti-riot drills on the Chinese social media network Weibo.

What are the protests about?

The rallies began with fears over a proposed bill that would allow suspected criminals to be sent to mainland China to face trial.

Critics said it would undermine Hong Kong’s judicial independence and could be used to target those who spoke out against the Chinese government.

The row intensified as police were accused of using excessive force on protesters.

Though the bill has now been suspended, demonstrators want it fully withdrawn – and have also been expressing their anger at the police, and demanding an amnesty for protesters accused of rioting.

The protesters have become more confrontational in recent weeks, with demonstrators arguing that the government has not responded to peaceful rallies.

A city-wide strike on Monday crippled transport services and brought the city to a standstill.

About 250 flights were cancelled as airport and airline staff joined the strike.

Protests later took place in several districts, with police firing tear gas at demonstrators who rallied into the night, setting fires and besieging police stations.

In one district with a reputation for pro-Beijing sympathies, men wielding long poles clashed with demonstrators before falling back.

Police said 148 people, aged between 13 and 63, were arrested during Monday’s protests.

On Monday, Ms Lam gave her first media address in two weeks, warned that Hong Kong was “on the verge of a very dangerous situation”.

She also accused activists of using the extradition bill as a cover for their real goal, which was to “destroy Hong Kong”.

*


China warns Hong Kong protesters of severe repercussions

Demonstrators in Hong Kong should not underestimate China’s “immense strength,” a government official has warned. Unrest has reached new levels in recent days and punishment is “only a matter of time.”

*

China issued a stark warning to the “behind-the-scenes masterminds” on Tuesday over continued demonstrations in Hong Kong, saying that “those who play with fire will perish by it.”

At a press briefing in Beijing, Yang Guang, spokesman for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, said that central government has “immense strength” and that punishment for those behind the demonstrations is “only a matter of time.”

Yang added that the “radical protests… have severely impacted Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, pushing it into a dangerous abyss.”

He also had a firm warning for the “criminals” behind the protests: “Don’t ever misjudge the situation and mistake our restraint for weakness.”

People power

Earlier on Tuesday, a group of activists wearing masks and hard hats held a press conference in the Mong Kok neighborhood of the city. They urged the city’s leader Carrie Lam to “return power to the people and to address the demands of Hong Kong citizens.”

The three activists, who declined to give their real names, said the group “was not affiliated with any political party or organization leading the movement.”

One of them added: “We strongly condemn the police for the series of violent acts and urge them and the government not to be enemies against the public.”

Escalating unrest

The protesters are seeking the resignation of Carrie Lam. In addition, they are angry at proposals which would allow case-by-case extraditions of alleged criminals to mainland China. The Chinese government recently shelved the plans in the wake of the demonstrations.

However, unrest has continued, if anything with more fervor than before, as protesters call for expanded democratic rights and further autonomy.

Police said Monday’s figures reached a new high with the largest daily toll of arrests since the protests began.

“During the operation yesterday, the police arrested 148 people consisting of 95 males and 53 females, aged between 13 and 63 years old,” superintendent John Tse said.

Lam warned the region was nearing a “very dangerous situation,” as she said the protests challenge China’s sovereignty.

“I dare say they are trying to destroy Hong Kong,” said Lam.

Erosion of rights

The crisis has become the biggest threat to China’s control of the region since its handover from the British in 1997.

Under the terms of the deal with Britain, Hong Kong has rights that are different to those on mainland China, such as an independent judiciary and freedom of speech.

But many say those rights are being stymied. 

Protesters point towards the extradition to the mainland of dissident booksellers, the disqualification of prominent politicians and the jailing of pro-democracy leaders.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Trump. Nuova Commissione per definire cosa siano o non siano i ‘diritti umani’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-24.

Aborto 001

Se non fosse inquinato dalla politica, il problema filosofico e giuridico della definizione di cosa siano ed in cosa consistano i ‘diritti umani‘ – ‘human right‘ – sarebbe affascinante.

In linea generale possiamo affermare che non esistono diritti senza i relativi doveri.

Si acquisisce, per esempio, il diritto a ricevere la pensione dopo che si sia adempiuto al dovere di versare i relativi contributi. Si acquisisce il diritto a viaggiare in treno dopo aver adempiuto al dovere di aver pagato il biglietto.

Più si sale nella scala gerarchica dei ‘diritti‘, più si sale in quella dei relativi ‘doveri’.

I concetti dunque si generalizzano, e la generalizzazione non deve contraddire elemento alcuno.

Occorre tuttavia fare molta attenzione a non condurre ragionamenti monchi: il generale non può essere trattato dal particolare, ma il generale deve comprendere logicamente tutti i particolari.

*

Nel cercare di definire cosa siano i ‘diritti fondamentali‘ si incorre solitamente in un severo errore omissivo: si considera l’essere umano come singola monade, avulsa dal contesto in cui vive.

Ma, pensiamoci bene, non avrebbe senso enunciare il diritto alla vita se l’essere umano fosse una singolarità: questo enunciato acquista la sua dimensione logica solo inserendo la persona nell’ambito della Collettività in cui vive. Stessa cosa per il ‘diritto alla libertà‘: se l’essere umano vivesse solo sarebbe un enunciato senza senso. Nessuno potrebbe negargli la libertà, per il semplice motivo che non esisterebbe.

Ecco quindi che i ‘diritti fondamentali’ acquistano la loro ragion d’essere dalla concomitante presenza di ‘doveri fondamentali‘ che la persona umana contrae nei confronti della Collettività: gli uomini sono esseri sociali. Se la persona umana gode del diritto alla vita, nel contempo ha il dovere di mantenere in vita la Collettività.

Questo semplice ragionamento è gravido di conseguenze.

Se l’essere umano ambisca a godere dei suoi diritti fondamentali deve assolvere prima ai doveri che li sostengono.

Poiché per natura tutto è caduto, soggetto alla morte, al diritto alla vita del singolo corrisponde quello della Collettività, cui si adempie prolificando. Senza persone vive non esisterebbe la Collettività.

Il discorso potrebbe essere ampliato a piacere, per toccare temi, per esempio, quali la legittima difesa.

Se è giusto che la persona umana abbia il diritto di difendersi da un’aggressione violenta, altrettanto diritto ha la Collettività a difendersi da persone che le usano violenza, fino arrivare alla pena di morte. Fino ad arrivare alla guerra guerreggiata. È qyella nota come ‘giusta guerra’.

*

Nell’economia del presente discorso, si potrebbe ricordare la Magna Charta Libertatum, promulgata nel 1215, senza però dimenticare il writ dell’Habeas Corpus.

Non avrebbe senso enunciare che “Nessun uomo libero può essere arrestato, imprigionato […] o danneggiato in alcun modo, eccetto dal giudizio legale dei suoi pari e dalla Legge della Paese” se l’essere umano non vivesse in una Collettività. Senza di questa, nessuno potrebbe imprigionarlo.

*

Alla fine del ‘700 si attua una transizione logica di enorme portata, e concettualmente errata, essendo contraddittoria.

Il Bill of Rights, dichiarazione americana dei diritti dell’uomo e del cittadino adottata dal Governo americano, e poi la Dichiarazione dei diritti dell’uomo e del cittadino approvata in Francia dall’Assemblea nazionale nel 1789 costituiscono il punto di svolta.

Se è vero che le dichiarazioni americana e francese proclamavano i diritti dell’uomo invocando l’autorità della natura, in quanto è direttamente dalla natura che i singoli ricevono alcuni diritti fondamentali, di cui sono titolari fin dalla nascita. al Concetto di Collettività era sostituito quello dello stato.

Salto logico di colossale portata: si perde come punto di riferimento una realtà naturale da meglio scoprire ed intendere, la Collettività, ma pur sempre oggettiva, e la si sostituisce con il concetto dello stato, visione soggettiva.

Ciò che lo stato legifera non solo è legale ma anche etico. Un gran bel salto logico.

Ma ciò che è illogico non dura nel tempo e genera mostri.

Estendendo codesti concetti, le leggi nazionalsocialiste erano perfettamente legali e, sotto questa accezione, sarebbero state anche eticamente giuste. Tutti sono tenuti ad obbedire alle leggi dello stato.

Era un insulto al comune buon senso ed alla umanità.

Fu merito del processo di Norimberga l’aver ribadito come il diritto naturale sia precedente a quello positivo e che il Cittadino possa e debba ribellarsi a quelle leggi dello stato che contraddico quelle del diritto naturale.

*

Ma la tentazione era pur sempre grande.

Nei decenni si è assistito ad un proliferare di ‘diritti umani‘ – ‘human Rights‘ altamente contraddittori, ma ben utili dal punto di vista politico. I liberal democratici americani li hanno elaborati per poter colpire i loro nemici politci, ma, ammettiamolo francamente, è un modo molto singolare di ricercare la verità.

*

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced a new commission to review the idea of human rights and how it shapes US foreign policy»

«US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking at the State Department on Monday, announced the creation of a new, 10-person commission to advise him on human rights issues»

«Pompeo said the new commission will provide “intellectual grist” for the “most profound reexamination of unalienable rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”»

«The time is right for an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy»

«Words like ‘rights’ can be used for good and evil»

«As human rights claims have proliferated, some claims have come into tension with one another provoking questions and clashes about which rights are entitled to gain respect»

* * * * * * *

Immediata la reazione dei liberal democratici, che alcuni supposti ‘human rights‘ hanno fatto bandiera.


Deutsche Welle. 2019-07-09. US sets up commission for human rights advice

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced a new commission to review the idea of human rights and how it shapes US foreign policy. Critics worry it will provide justification to roll back women’s and LGBT+ rights.

*

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking at the State Department on Monday, announced the creation of a new, 10-person commission to advise him on human rights issues. The Commission on Unalienable Rights will be led by Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor, former US ambassador to the Vatican, and staunch abortion opponent.

Pompeo said the new commission will provide “intellectual grist” for the “most profound reexamination of unalienable rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” He said, “The time is right for an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy.”

Pompeo, a devout evangelical Christian, quoted former Czech dissident and later president, Vaclav Havel, saying, “Words like ‘rights’ can be used for good and evil.”

“It’s a sad commentary on our times that more than 70 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, gross violations continue throughout the world, sometimes even in the name of human rights. International institutions, designed and built to protect human rights have drifted from their original purpose,” said Pompeo. 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed in 1948, was the first document to codify the protection of fundamental human rights, recognizing inalienable rights as the basis of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

Fears of undermining existing frameworks

Critics fear that the commission, and the appointment of Glendon to head it, could signal an attempt by the Trump administration to attack women’s reproductive rights as well as the rights of LGBT+ citizens around the world.

“This administration has actively worked to deny and take away longstanding human rights protections since Trump’s inauguration. If this administration truly wanted to support people’s rights, it would use the global framework already in place,” said Joanne Lin, national director of advocacy and government affairs for the rights group Amnesty International USA.

‘Difficult task of transmuting principles into policy’

Speaking at the State Department, Glendon said the commission would, “do our very best to carry out our marching orders, and do so in a way that will assist you in your difficult task of transmuting principle into policy.”

The Trump administration has been strongly criticized for its efforts to undermine UN approaches to women’s rights.

Most recently, the US threatened to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning sexual violence against women in armed conflict because it claimed the resolution’s wording opened the door to abortion.

The Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to remove language on sexual and reproductive rights from a number of UN resolutions. The US also cut funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2017, claiming that it fostered “a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

The United States has been regularly accused of selectively citing human rights abuses, calling out countries like Cuba, China, Iran, and Venezuela, while turning a blind eye to abuses in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Conservatives see abortion as an aberration

Conservatives in the US are often critical of widely accepted rights issues such as women’s reproductive rights, LGBT+ rights, and income equality. Instead, they advocate the idea of “god-given rights” or “natural law,” railing against abortion and contraception as aberrations.

Glendon, too, has been highly critical of such measures. After representing the Vatican at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, she said, “Much of the foundation money that swirled around the Beijing process was aimed at forging a link between development aid and programs that pressure poor women into abortion, sterilization, and the use of risky contraceptive measures.”

Pompeo, who did not take questions at Monday’s press conference, said the commission would include activists and human rights experts representing a broad spectrum of political views.

*


Reuters. 2019-07-09. Pompeo launches commission to study human rights role

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday launched a panel to re-examine the role of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, drawing criticism from lawmakers and activists who said it was an attempt to minimize abortion and gay rights.

Pompeo named Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, to head the Commission on Unalienable Rights.

Pompeo, who did not take questions from reporters, said international institutions built to protect human rights had drifted from their mission.

“As human rights claims have proliferated, some claims have come into tension with one another provoking questions and clashes about which rights are entitled to gain respect,” he said.

“The time is right for an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy.”

Rights groups have criticized the Trump administration for not making human rights a priority in its foreign policy.

Critics argue that it sends a message that the administration turns a blind eye to human rights abuses in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Egypt.

“This politicization of human rights in order to, what appears to be an attempt to further hateful policies aimed at women and LGBTQ people, is shameful,” Amnesty International USA’s Joanne Lin said in a statement.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union, said any attempts to unveil the commission as a way to protect America’s founding principles “are absurd.”

“The Trump administration couldn’t play by the rules so now it has decided to try to change the rules themselves,” Dakwar said.

After being introduced by Pompeo, Glendon said the commission would “do our very best to carry out your marching orders and to do so in a way that will assist you in your difficult task of transmuting principle into policy.”

Bob Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized Pompeo’s argument that the commission was needed because basic human rights are misunderstood and manipulated.

“These claims are absurd, particularly from an administration that has taken a wrecking ball to America’s global leadership on promoting fundamental rights across the world,” Menendez said.

The focus of the commission on “natural law” was language sometimes used to justify policies that discriminate against marginalized populations, he said.

Tom Malinowski, a Democrat and former chief human rights diplomat in the Obama administration, said the panel was the idea of an administration that “seems eager to cozy up and justify the action of the worst dictators in the world.”

The Trump administration has stepped up an anti-abortion push at the United Nations since cutting funding in 2017 for the U.N. Population Fund.

In April a U.S. threat to veto U.N. Security Council action on sexual violence in conflict was averted after a phrase was removed because the Trump administration saw it as code for abortion, diplomats said.

Last year, Washington tried to remove language on sexual and reproductive health from several U.N. resolutions, then failed in a similar campaign in March during the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women meeting.

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

Salvini. Una dignitosa lettera a Mr Castaner.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-21.

Superbia 010

«L’Italia non è più il campo profughi di Bruxelles, Parigi, Berlino. E non è più disposta ad accogliere tutti gli immigrati in arrivo in Europa»

«Francia e Germania non possono decidere le politiche migratorie ignorando le richieste dei paesi più esposti come noi e Malta»

«Intendiamo farci rispettare …. L’ho spiegato a Helsinki e ora l’ho messo nero su bianco al mio omologo francese Castaner. L’Italia ha rialzato la testa»

* * * * * * *

Il problema non risiede nei criteri di ripartizione dei migranti.

Il problema è che i flussi migratori illegali devono cessare, così come l’attività criminale delle ngo – ong – che praticano la tratta, dietro mandato dei governi di Parigi e di Berlino.

Ma sia Mr Castaner sia Herr Seehofer sono intrinsecamente dittatoriali e vorrebbero che tutti si inchinassero  ai loro voleri egemonici, volti a mantenersi tutti gli introiti illeciti che derivano dalla tratta dei migranti.

Parlano tanto di fascismo e nazionalsocialismo, ma loro sono il prototipo del comportamento nazionalsocialista: sono intrinsecamente nazionalsocialisti.

Non solo.

Reduci dalle brucianti sconfitte delle bocciature di Herr Weber prima, di Herr Timmermans dopo, hanno il dente avvelenato e schiumano rabbia impotente nei confronti di Mr Salvini e dell’Italia.

Occorrerebbe comprendere a fondo quanto e perché Castaner e Seehofer odino.

Nella loro smisurata superbia soffrono di deliri di onnipotenza, ma la loro volontà è arginata da quella degli altri: di qui l’odio. Odiano Italia e gli altri stati identitari sovranisti non tanto perché si oppongono, quanto perché li pongono drammaticamente di fronte alla realtà che la loro volontà non è onnipotente. Li odiano perché sono la testimonianza vivente dei limiti che essi hanno.

Questa è la base del loro razzismo viscerale, che ha una vena molto chiara di luciferino.

Superbia 011


Ansa. 2019-07-21. Salvini: ‘L’Italia non è il campo campo profughi Ue’

L’Italia “non è più il campo profughi di Bruxelles, Parigi, Berlino. E non è più disposta ad accogliere tutti gli immigrati in arrivo in Europa”. Lo dice il vicepremier e ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini annunciando di aver inviato una lettera al collega francese Christophe Castaner nella quale ribadisce che Francia e Germania “non possono decidere le politiche migratorie ignorando le richieste dei paesi più esposti come noi e Malta”.

La lettera arriva alla vigilia della riunione convocata dal governo di Parigi, aperta a tutti i 28 paesi dell’Ue e alla quale parteciperà anche il commissario uscente alle migrazioni Dimitri Avramopoulos, per tentare di trovare una soluzione alla questione degli sbarchi. Un incontro al quale Salvini ha fatto già sapere che non avrebbe partecipato, inviando dei tecnici del Viminale. “Intendiamo farci rispettare – aggiunge il ministro dell’Interno – L’ho spiegato a Helsinki e ora l’ho messo nero su bianco al mio omologo francese Castaner. L’Italia ha rialzato la testa”.

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

Europarlamento. Riproposta la Laura Kövesi quale PG europeo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-15.

Cobra_003__

Stiamo assistendo ad un conflitto sanguinoso, ed alla fine controproducente, tra gli organi istituzionali dell’Unione Europea.

Se nel Consiglio Europeo il fronte identitario sovranista è riuscito a coagulare undici nazioni, il voto delle quali è stato in grado di bloccare le nomine di Herr Weber e di Mr Timmermanns, favorendo quindi la candidatura di Frau von der Leyen, sancendo de facto ima visione di Europa delle Nazioni, nell’europarlamento si è andato formando un fronte liberal socialista, estremamente deciso a nulla concedere agli identitari sovranisti, anche quando alcune cariche parlamentari avrebbero dovuto essere ripartite tra maggioranza ed opposizione, tenendo anche conto delle esigenze dei singoli stati. Ma per ‘stato’ si intende il Governo attuale.

*

L’attuale europarlamento ha nominato sì alcune persone nate in paesi identitari sovranisti, ma scegliendo con cura personaggi loro vicini, essendo espressione delle minoranze liberal locali. Per esempio, gli italiani selezionati sono tali per nascita, ma non certo rappresentativi del governo italiano.

Questo modo di agire conduce inevitabilmente ad una contrapposizione muro contro muro, senza possibilità alcuna di un dialogo costruttivo.

Adesso si ripropone il caso della Mrs Laura Kövesi, che l’europarlamento vorrebbe insediare come procuratore europeo. Se tale signora è rumena di nascita, ma liberal nella mente e nel cuore.

«Mrs Laura Codruta Kövesi, classe 1973, a soli 33 anni fu nominata il 2 ottobre 2006 Procuratore capo della procura dell’Alta corte di cassazione e giustizia ed il 17 maggio 2013 Procuratore capo della Direzione nazionale anticorruzione della Romania.»

Rimossa per corruzione da tale carica, fu anche arrestata ed in Romania pende sul suo capo un processo.

«Kovesi, 45, is now being investigated by a newly-formed agency on allegations of abuse of office, bribery and perjury in Romania»

Mr Juncker e Mr Tusk la vorrebbero a capo della Procura europea.

Ed il parlamento nuovo eletto prosegue sulla stesa linea.

Romania. Ire della EU per aver accorciato i termini di prescrizione.

Romania. I gerarchi EU la odiano per motivi di sordida bottega.

Affaire Kövesi. Financial Times così furibondo da pubblicare senza blocchi.

Romania. Arrestata Laura Kövesi, candidata di Juncker a capo della Procura Europea.

Unione Europea. Quella cesta di serpi velenosi vorrebbe colpire ancora.

Bruxelles. Laura Kövesi. Ricordatevi bene questo nome.

*

Per i liberal è fondamentale poter avere giudici che appartengano alla loro setta: le Corti di Giustizia europee sono strumento di dominio inappellabile, fatto che permette loro di aggirare il mancato consenso popolare.

Per meglio comprendere, sarebbe sufficiente leggersi quanto stia accadendo nel Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura in Italia ed informarsi su quel galantuomo di Palamara.

Il nodo della giustizia europea esiste ed è reale e la posta in gioco è evidenziata molto bene dall’acrimonia con cui i liberal socialisti difendono i ‘loro’ giudici.

Gli identitari sovranisti hanno già vinto molte battaglie, ma la guerra sarà lunga e non facile.

Si preannuncia un’Unione Europea non governabile.


EU Observer. 2019-07-13. Romania’s Kövesi set to be first EU public prosecutor

The Romanian anti corruption prosecutor, Laura Kövesi, is poised to become the first European public prosecutor. Her only opponent, the French Jean-François Bonhert, pulled out of the race after being nominated for another function in France. Kövesi was the preferred candidate of the European Parliament, while Bonhert was supported by the European Council. However, the decision remains complicated, as according to the council rules, there must be two candidates.

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

California. È comparsa la parola ‘secessione’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-13.

Macbeth__011

Quando il dialogo politico illanguidisce ed alla fine si arena, quando la parte viscerale prende il sopravvento su quella razionale, quando gli interessi economici sono conflittuali ed apparentemente non risolvibili, ebbene, allora inizia a prender corpo l’idea di una secessione.

Tutti gli stati nazionali hanno una qualche clausola costituzionale che dichiara il territorio uno ed indivisibile. È stata la base giuridica della guerra di secessione del sud contro il nord, e gli Stati Uniti ricordano l’allora Presidente Lincoln come un secondo fondatore della Patria.

La reazione spagnola al tentativo separatistico della Catalogna è un altro chiaro esempio di codesto concetto.

Per contro, poche decine di anni or sono la Repubblica Ceka si è separata dalla Slovakia in modo amichevole, continuando a mantenere ottimi rapporti e, si direbbe, con vantaggio di ambedue le parti.

*

Tutta la dirigenza politica ed amministrativa della California professa la ideologia liberal, e si senta in particolare disagio al momento attuale con il resto degli Stati Uniti che non condivide tale credo religioso.

I giudici del 9th Circuito hanno ripetutamente cercato di bloccare gli ordini Esecutivi di Mr Trump e si sentono particolarmente minacciati dal fatto che ora la Suprema Corte abbia cinque membri nominati da presidenti repubblicani contro i quattro nominati da presidenti democratici. Non solo, ma proprio di questi tempi la Suprema Corte ha preso posizione sul Censu, sul Gerrymandering. La procura federale ha incriminato un giudice distrettuale liberal per aver ostacolato la giustizia, ponendolo nella situazione di rischiare venticinque anni di carcere.

Tutti gli elementi noti deporrebbero per un netto calo dell’influenza dei liberal democratici e nella sempre più ragionevolmente sicura rielezione di Mr Trump.

*

In questa situazione è del tutti sequenziale che la California inizi a pensare ad una secessione. Farla sarebbe cosa ben diversa, Spagna docet.

«Secession is extremely improbable»

*

«Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years»

*

«According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans.»

*

«We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now»

*

«Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years»

*

«For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country»

*

«A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave»

*

«Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’»

*

«Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true»

*

«The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control»

*

«California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US»

*

«California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation»

* * * * * * *

La storia ci insegna che nessuna situazione politica è stabile nel tempo. Non solo. Riescono a resistere ben di più quelle strutture agili ed aperte alle mutazioni in ragione dei tempi, mentre tutte le situazioni dogmatiche sono alla fine corrose dall’azione del tempo, fino alla implosione.

Un chiaro esempio è l’attuale devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal.

Soltanto dieci anni or sono al solo accennarne si sarebbe stati etichettati come pazzi visionari.

In fondo, Lenin dice che il comunismo sarebbe stato eterno, Mussolini più modestamente parlava di era fascista, durata nei fatti circa venti anni, ed il Reich millenario è vissuto dal 1932 al 1945. Veramente poco per i tempi della storia.


Bbc. 2019-04-19. What if California seceded from the Us?

Secession is extremely improbable. But looking at what could ensue if it happened underscores some fascinating truths about the US – and where power really lies.

*

Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years. According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans. By contrast, in 1994 those figures were just 64% and 70%, respectively. Some scholars argue that ideological tensions have never been greater in living memory.

“We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now,” says Bernard Grofman, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years.”

California is no exception. For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country.

According to Monica Toft, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Boston, arguments in support of these plans include the belief that the federal government no longer represents California’s economic interests; that the state is so large that proper governance is only possible if applied across a smaller geographic scale; or that irreconcilable differences have emerged between what California and the rest of the US stand for.

To be clear, unless something drastically changes, California is not going to secede any time soon. A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave. A 2017 survey of 1,000 Californians conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, found that a bipartisan 68% opposed such initiatives.

Yet exploring what would happen should this improbable event come to pass is still worthwhile for the questions it raises about the precarious balance of power – and politics – in the US.

Civil war?

The possibility of violence, even formal war, is the first and most crucial question for hypothesising what would happen if California tried to leave. Another US civil war may sound unlikely, but consider that the southern US did not expect lasting conflict to ensue when it decided to secede from the north 157 years ago.

Civil war did break out, leading to the loss of some 620,000 American lives and shaking the country to its core. “It seems unfathomable that the US would have another war of secession, but I think if you talked to people in the mid-19th Century they would have said the same thing,” Toft says. “The US is not immune to this.”

Other splits throughout history sparked violence too. Pakistan responded with genocide and mass rape when Bangladesh decided to become a separate nation in 1971, while Eritrea’s War of Independence from Ethiopia dragged on for 30 years.

It doesn’t always play out this way; some countries have pulled off peaceful secessions. In 1993, in what is known as the Velvet Divorce, the Czech Republic split from Slovakia with no resulting bloodshed. And despite tough talk between the EU and UK, Brexit is proceeding peacefully.

Whether the US opted to try to forcibly prevent California from leaving would largely depend on who was leading the country at the time and how they felt about secession, says Stephen Saideman, an international affairs professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. “Republicans might actually say ‘good riddance’, whereas Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’,” he says.

Unlike in the US Civil War, however, there is no fundamental issue like slavery to inflame the divide, and most scholars agree that there is just too much shared identity between California and the rest of the US to imagine a scenario in which war breaks out.

“Californians are not akin to the Kurds in Iraq, the Catalans in Spain or even the Scots and Irish in the UK,” says Brendan O’Leary, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I cannot foresee generals from the Pentagon obeying orders to go occupy California by force.”

Power politics

Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true. California is the largest state in the union by population, and its exit would radically shift the political playing field in the US. The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control. Meanwhile, the loss of California’s electoral votes would leave little hope for the US to see another Democratic president in the near future.

“Politically, this would put Democrats in a deep, deep hole,” Saideman says. “They’ve depended on California since the early 1990s for having a chance to win presidential elections.”

In response to the red wave, remaining US Democratic representatives would likely shift their politics to the right. “If you no longer have California anchoring the Democratic Party positions, then that dramatically changes the center of gravity,” Grofman says. For Democrats, the most optimistic outcome for a US without California, he continues, would be a more centrist political arena – one akin to the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961), when bipartisan consensus allowed for major undertakings like the construction of the interstate highway system.

No matter how US politics shook out, however, losing California would deliver a significant economic blow to the newly diminished nation. California is the world’s fifth largest economy – bigger than that of the entire UK – grossing $2.7 trillion in 2017.

It also contributes more tax revenue to the US federal government than any other state, subsidising “all sorts of Republican states, for which it simply receives abuse in return”, O’Leary says.

How big the overall impact would be on the US economy would depend on whether leaders struck up free trade agreements or if they imposed tariffs and other trade barriers. No matter what, though, the US would not escape unscathed.

“The dollar would tank,” O’Leary says. “The euro and Chinese yuan could replace it as the global currency.”

The newly divided US would lose international footing and become more beholden to its allies, and some long-standing friendships would be tested. With the US leaning more strongly to the right, nations also run by right-leaning parties, such as Hungary and Russia, might become closer to the US. But relations between the US and Canada – which are generally better when both nations’ leaders sit on the same side of the political spectrum – would fray. So would those with Mexico as the increasingly right-wing US government shifted toward harder-line immigration policies.

California, on the other hand, would become an attractive new ally for those and other liberal countries. “Suddenly, instead of a bipolar system with the US and China, we’d see a multi-polar system with the US, China, California, India and so on,” Saideman says. “In international relations, multi-polar systems produce a lot more confusion because alliances matter a lot more.”

As California vied for a high standing in the international community, it would likely take a lead on key issues such as mitigating global warming. California’s progress, however, would be counterbalanced by the US’s continued backsliding, including its loosening of emissions and pollution standards, defunding of initiatives to develop sustainable energy and opening up of carbon-capturing wilderness areas for prospecting and development.

“California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US,” Saideman says.

Immigration haven

California could also be more attractive than the US to immigrants. The newly formed country would almost certainly continue to welcome overseas innovators to Silicon Valley and its space agency, but it might also relax policies for less skilled workers as well. “Given the sheer scale of Hispanic populations in California and the role of agriculture there, I can’t imagine that California would not wish to develop a new policy on the question of welcoming people from Central America and elsewhere,” O’Leary says.

On the other hand, while highly diverse southern California might look favourably on immigration, much more conservative northern California could be staunchly opposed. “If you look at maps of the last election, there are deep pockets of red and blue, and areas in between,” Toft says. “It’s not inevitable that California is liberal.”

Grofman adds that, as humans, we are naturally inclined to view the world as a zero-sum game. “People tend to believe that adding new people will simply divide the pie in more ways,” he says. “In other words, anything you get, I lose.”

Though economists have shown time and time again that growth creates positive-sum benefits, Californians, with their newly established borders, also may fall subject to an erroneous us-versus-them mentality. “The standard rule about immigration is that whoever is already there decides that the best thing that could possibly happen is to put up barriers to anyone else coming in,” Grofman says. There’s no guarantee that an independent California would be an exception.

Also contrary to what many might assume, California’s secession probably wouldn’t kick off a sudden mass immigration of US liberals into California and an exodus of Republicans out. “I’m an American in Canada, and after every election, everyone says ‘I’m moving to Canada’, but they don’t,” Saideman says. “If California seceded there would be some flow, but it wouldn’t be as dramatic as people think, and most of it would be driven by jobs.”

California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation. Therefore, states stretching north from Maryland to Maine and west to Pennsylvania may see secession as the only means of escaping a permanent Republican majority.

History has seen such dynamics play out. States such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova only seceded from the Soviet Union after the Baltic states led the way. “In this hypothetical situation, you can imagine folks in the north-east thinking that if D.C. allowed California to go scot-free, it would probably let them go, too,” says Saideman.

Following the secession of the north-east, Florida may opt to depart, too, as could parts of Texas. At that point, other states – many of which have the economic capacity and population size to become small countries of their own – may see little incentive to stick around. In other words, California’s secession could be the beginning of the end for the United States of America as we know it.

As Grofman says, “In a world in which California seceded, the most pessimistic scenario is further breakup of the US.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Senza categoria

Simone Burns. Avvocatessa dei ‘diritti umani’, femminista, liberal. Suicida.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-08.

2019-07-09__Avvocatessa__001

«She Abused flight attendants who stopped her having a fourth bottle of wine»

«Simone Burns, 50, from Hove, was given a six-month jail sentence in April for shouting at Air India staff during a flight from Mumbai to London last year»

«She had been refused more alcohol and demanded to speak to the pilot»

«Burns was filmed telling a crew member she was “a fucking international lawyer” and calling stewards “Indian money-grabbing cunts”.»

«She reportedly also tried to smoke a cigarette in the toilets»

«Burns was called to the bar in 1992 and represented refugees from around the world»

«An anonymous friend told the Daily Telegraph that Burns’ “world fell apart” after her conviction and she had been targeted by internet trolls after footage of her shouting went viral»

* * * * * * *

Mrs Simone Burns aveva e godeva di tutte le virtù esaltate dai liberal socialisti.

Femmina, carta vincente di questi tempi.

Avvocatessa, professione sulla crescita dell’onda.

Patrona dei ‘diritti civili’, ossia lgbt.

Patrona dei rifugiati.

«she was a fucking international lawyer»

Ricca: i suoi onorari non erano da poco.

Single: non si può certo perdere tempo con il sesso inferiore, per non parlare poi di quegli stramaledetti figli, petulanti e petitivi, che limitano la libertà delle fattrici.

* * * * * * *

Ma forse che vi crediate che fosse felice?

Fumava di nascosto, per non farsi vedere.

Ha sputato in faccia allo steward che le negava la quarta bottiglia di vino.

Quell’ominide non sapeva che lei era un’avvocatessa internazionale!

Etilista cronica per annegare nel vino l’amaro sapore di una vita insulsa.

Già: i cinquanta anni erano arrivati di soppiatto, la bellezza giovanile era svanita, e solo il cancro cutaneo le teneva compagnia.

Solitudine esistenziale: gli assegni non ti vengono incontro movendo la coda come fanno i cuccioli di cane. Né ti vengono a trovare con l’amore di un coniuge oppure dei figli.

È vero. La solitudine è una pena infernale che già attanaglia in questa vita.

Si reputava essere chissà cosa e chi, «international lawyer», ma era solo una etilista cronica con cui nessuno voleva avere a che fare. E che doveva sbronzarsi sola come una appestata.

Tutta la sua felicità è consistita nel suicidarsi.

Gran begli ideali quelli propalati dai liberal!


Sputò a uno steward che le negava l’alcol, avvocato si suicida [Video]

«Un’avvocatessa per i diritti umani era stata arrestata per abuso e molestie | Ansa – CorriereTv

Simone Burns, 50 anni, avvocatessa per i diritti umani, dopo aver sputato in faccia ad uno steward su un volo Mumbai Londra ad aprile scorso, era stata condannata a 6 mesi di reclusione. Scontato il primo mese, aveva ricevuto una licenza di due giorni per tornare a casa. Dopo 13 giorni di ricerche il suo corpo è stato trovato a Beachy Head, vicino Eastburne. La donna era stata presa di mira da trolls dopo che il video della sua azione in aereo era diventato virale»

*


Lawyer who racially abused flight crew found dead after jail release

«Simone Burns was targeted by trolls after video of her abusing Air India crew went viral.

A human rights lawyer who was jailed after shouting racist abuse at Air India staff was found dead days after being released from prison, police have said.

Simone Burns, 50, from Hove, was given a six-month jail sentence in April for shouting at Air India staff during a flight from Mumbai to London last year. She had been refused more alcohol and demanded to speak to the pilot.

Burns was filmed telling a crew member she was “a fucking international lawyer” and calling stewards “Indian money-grabbing cunts”. She reportedly also tried to smoke a cigarette in the toilets.

Burns was found dead at Beachy Head in East Sussex on 1 June, 13 days after her release on licence from Bronzefield prison.

Burns was called to the bar in 1992 and represented refugees from around the world. She was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2001 and underwent several operations.

An anonymous friend told the Daily Telegraph that Burns’ “world fell apart” after her conviction and she had been targeted by internet trolls after footage of her shouting went viral. ….»

*

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Fake News. Sono politicamente ininfluenti. Come la Thiotimuline.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-01.

2019-06-26__Fake News 001

La Fondazione Marco Biagi, Università di Modena e di Reggio Emilia e la Banca Centrale Europea hanno pubblicato un interessante lavoro di ricerca:

Does fake news affect voting behaviour?

«Over the last decade, the erosion of trust in public institutions and traditional media sources have been proceeding in parallel. As recent developments in media consumption have led to a proliferation of politically charged online misinformation, it is no wonder that many have been questioning whether the spread of fake news has affected the results of recent elections, contributing to the growth of populist party platforms. In this work, we aim to quantify this impact by focusing on the causal effect of the spread of misinformation over electoral outcomes in the 2018 Italian General elections. We exploit the presence of Italian and German linguistic groups in the Trento and Bolzano/Bozen autonomous provinces as an exogenous source of variation, assigning individuals into distinct filter bubbles each differently exposed to misinformation. To do so, we introduce a novel index based on text mining techniques to measure populism. Using this approach, we analyse the social media content of each party and their leaders over the course of the electoral campaign for the 2013 and 2018 elections. We then collect electoral and socio-demographic data from the region and, after constructing a proxy for exposition to misinformation, we measure the change in populist vote across the two groups in-between the two general elections, using a combination of difference-in-difference and two-stages least-squares inference methods. Our results indicate that misinformation had a negligible and non-significant effect on populist vote in Trentino and South Tyrol during the Italian 2018 general elections.»

* * * * * * *

Di questi tempi si è parlato e si sta parlando molto di fake news.

Nell’immaginario collettivo sono diventate sinonimo di notizia artatamente falsa propalata al fine di condizionare lo orientamento politico della gente. Facebook si è fatto crociato contro le fake news bannando a destra e manca tutti i profili che le avrebbero riportate.

Negli Stati Uniti ed in Germania si assiste ad una vera psicosi per le fake news, quasi sempre associate ai servizi segreti russi in favore dei repubblicani in America e dei populisti in Europa.

*

Il lavoro sperimentale del dr. Michele Cantarella et Al. smentisce codeste tesi.

Constata intanto la difficoltà di identificare come ‘fake’ una notizia riportata: molte informazione etichettate come ‘false’ si sono poi dimostrate essere veritiere.

Constata anche come nel novero delle fake news sia state inseriti testi chiaramente satirici e comparsi su giornali di satira.

*

«I risultati ci indicano che la diffusione di fake news non ha contribuito al successo elettorale dei partiti populisti»

«Infatti, aggregando l’indice di populismo per il voto di ogni municipio, i risultati ci indicano che la variazione elettorale tra i due gruppi linguistici italiano e tedesco in relazione all’esposizione alle fake news è stata nulla»

«Insomma, le fake news non hanno avuto alcun effetto sul comportamento di voto.»

«si autoselezionano. Dai nostri dati emerge una correlazione tra fake news e preferenza populista a livello di singolo comune. Ma questa correlazione non si inserisce in un effetto causale. Questo ci fa concludere che molti degli elettori di queste forze si inseriscono autonomamente in queste bolle di disinformazione (misinformation bubbles) per fattori endogeni che già condizionano il loro comportamento di voto. O addirittura è la preferenza di voto stessa che li porta ad inserirsi in tali bolle»

«Ciò ci ha fatto sospettare che all’interno delle “casse di risonanza” (echo chambers) dei rispettivi partiti si venga a creare un pregiudizio sistematico di conferma (confirmation bias) per cui ogni elettore sia esposto alle notizie che effettivamente desidera vedere»

«Le fake news sono un sottoprodotto di queste bolle, ove quegli elettori …. che non sanno distinguere notizie vere da notizie false, sono esposti ad entrambe.»

«Tutto il discorso sulle fake news dovrebbe essere ridimensionato …. non funziona questa trasmissione tra fake news e aumento di voti; si è quindi sottovalutata la capacità di distinguere fake news dalle notizie vere»

«studi evidenziano l’inefficacia di chi sbugiarda le bufale (debunking), perché non riescono a raggiungere chi vi ha creduto»

* * * * * * *

Sarebbe da aggiungere una importante considerazione.

Il numero di citazioni addotte, i like, o qualsiasi altro segno visibile di consenso, non apportano alcunché a garantire la ‘verità’ della informazione: sono solo indicatori della sua diffusione.

Un criterio utile, non infallibile ma molto potente, è verificare se assieme alla notizia siano riportate, magari in fotocopia, fonti ufficiali, quali, per esempio, fonti governative ovvero pubblicazioni scientifiche.

Ma sempre attenti!

Vi ricordate il lavoro

The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline?

Articolo  pubblicato in perfetto stile scientifico, descriveva le caratteristiche della thiotimulina, una sostanza talmente solubile da sciogliersi in acqua ancor prima di esservi immersa….

L’Autore era Isaac Asimov.