Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. La Corte Federale rigetta il ricorso della FRF.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-17.

Jan_van_der_Meer_-_Singing_Couple

Per tradizione secolare Congresso e Senato Americano aprono le sessioni con una preghiera a Dio Onnipotente.

«the inclusion of a prayer before the opening of each session of both the House and the Senate traces its origins back to the days of the Continental Congress, and the official recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787:

    “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live,

    the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . .  I therefore beg leave to move— that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”» [Fonte]

*

«The constitutionality of legislative chaplains was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, related to chaplains in the Nebraska Legislature)» [Fonte]

*

Tuttavia, nel progredire dei tempi, in America si è fatta strada l’ideologia liberal democratica, la quale, proponendosi essa stessa come religione, riteneva essere intollerabile simile pratica.

L’ultimo tentativo di far dichiarare incostituzionali le preghiere iniziali di Congresso e Senato è stato fatto in perfetto stile liberal.

Dapprima si è fondata l’organizzazione non governativa ‘Freedom from Religion Foundation‘, che ha raggiunto i29,500 membri in tutti gli Stati Uniti.

Quindi questa organizzazione ha sottoposto il problema alla Corte Federale, presentandosi come interprete dei sentimenti anti-religiosi di tutto il popolo americano.

*

Freedom from Religion Foundation.

«Won’t you join FFRF in our critical work to promote nontheism and defend the constitutional separation between religion and government? With more than 29,500 members, the nonprofit FFRF works as an effective state/church watchdog and voice for freethought (atheism, agnosticism, skepticism)» [Freedom from Religion Foundation]

*

«About FFRF

Welcome to the Freedom from Religion Foundation

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is delighted to announce the formation of a new FFRF Honorary Board of distinguished achievers who have made known their dissent from religion.

The FFRF Honorary Board includes Jerry Coyne, Robin Morgan, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Ernie Harburg, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Jacoby, Lawrence Krauss, Mike Newdow, Katha Pollitt, Steven Pinker, Ron Reagan, Oliver Sacks, M.D., Robert Sapolsky, Edward Sorel and Julia Sweeney.

“We are so pleased that these outstanding thinkers and freethinkers have agreed to publicly lend their endorsement to the Foundation, and its two purposes of promoting freethought and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” said Dan Barker, Foundation co-president.» [Freedom from Religion Foundation]

*

Questo è il profilo del giudice federale che ha esaminato la questione.

«Rosemary Mayers Collyer (born November 19, 1945) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Born in Port Chester, New York, Collyer received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College (now Trinity Washington University) in 1968 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Denver College of Law in 1977.

She was in private practice at the law firm of Sherman & Howard in Colorado from 1977 to 1981. She was then Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission from 1981 to 1984 and General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from 1984 to 1989. She returned to private practice in Washington, D.C. as a partner in the firm of Crowell & Moring LLP from 1989 to 2002.

On August 1, 2002, Collyer was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Thomas Penfield Jackson. Collyer was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 14, 2002, and received her commission on November 15, 2002. She assumed senior status on May 18, 2016.

In 2013, Collyer was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Court provides a measure of judicial oversight over surveillance activities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended. Judge Collyer’s term on the FIS Court began on March 8, 2013 and will conclude on March 7, 2020. She replaced Judge John D. Bates, whose term ended on February 21, 2013.» [Fonte]

*

«A federal judge has re-affirmed the constitutionality of prayer in the U.S. Congress, ruling that Supreme Court precedent undergirds the long tradition of prayer opening each congressional session, along with the House rules that govern the practice»

*

«The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains»

*

«In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith»

*

«She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”»

* * * * * * *

Adesso resta aperta la questione della proibizione delle preghiere nelle scuole pubbliche.

Si voglia o meno, l’America è religiosa.


New American. 2017-10-14. Federal Judge Re-affirms Tradition of Congressional Prayer

A federal judge has re-affirmed the constitutionality of prayer in the U.S. Congress, ruling that Supreme Court precedent undergirds the long tradition of prayer opening each congressional session, along with the House rules that govern the practice.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains.

In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith. She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

But if Congress’ tradition of prayer does not conflict with the establsihment clause, then why would prayer in the public schools be considered a violation of the establishment clause? Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the latter to be a violation. How can this be? Judge Collyer did not address this question, which fell outside the scope of the case she was deciding.

In her opinion, Collyer wrote that “to decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) applauded Collyer’s ruling, noting: “Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated. The court rightfully dismissed the claims of an atheist that he had the right to deliver a secular invocation in place of the opening prayer.”

Ryan said that since the return to Congress of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was shot and severely wounded in an attack on him and other congressmen in June, “this institution has been reminded about the power of prayer. I commend the District Court for its decision, and I am grateful that the People’s House can continue to begin its work each day as we have for centuries: taking a moment to pray to God.”

Scalise also applauded the ruling, posting on Twitter: “Our rights come from God, so it’s only fitting that the House begins each day united in prayer.”

Following the ruling Barker complained that a bias “against the nonreligious” had prevented him “from participating in my government. The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers.”

By contrast, Tony Perkins of the Christian-oriented Family Research Council reflected that “for over 240 years, our elected representatives to the federal government have begun their public duties with prayer. When a session of the House of Representatives is opened, a prayer seeking God’s guidance is offered. Among other things, this is a reflection of the faith of many people across America who themselves seek His guidance in their lives.”


The Washington Times. 2017-10-14. Federal court upholds prayer in Congress

House Speaker Ryan cheers ruling: ‘Freedom to exercise religion was vindicated’.

*

A federal court ruled Wednesday that Congress can continue to open its sessions each day with a prayer, and upheld the House’s ability to pick and choose who’s allowed to lead the prayer.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, a Bush appointee who sits in Washington, D.C., rejected a challenge by Daniel Barker, co-president of Freedom From Religion Foundation, who said he was not permitted to give an opening invocation, even though other guest chaplains have been permitted.

Judge Collyer said House rules didn’t permit him to lead the prayer because he had left his faith.

Judge Collyer also said an opening prayer has been a tradition in this country for more than two centuries, and the Supreme Court has ruled it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause.

“To decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer,” Judge Collyer wrote in her opinion on Wednesday.

Mr. Barker said her ruling was tainted by personal bias against nonreligious people.

“The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers,” he said.

But House Speaker Paul D. Ryan applauded the ruling.

“Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated,” said Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.

He added the return of Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, who was shot earlier this year by a left wing zealot, reminded Congress of the power of prayer.

 

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump ed anti – Trump. Le forze in campo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-14.

2017-10-09__Soros

Nei sistemi democratici governo e relativo sottogoverno sono esercitati da chi abbia avuto la capacità di vincere la tornata elettorale, mentre la componente che ha perso le elezioni siede alla opposizione.

Sono necessari però molti presupposti perché il sistema possa funzionarie in modo fisiologicamente sano.

In primo luogo, tutte le forze in gioco dovrebbero condividere la stessa ed identica Weltanschauung per quello che riguarda i principi primi della società. Con tale dizioni si intende denominare quell’insieme di concetti metagiuridici che sottendono la costituzione, ovvero la carta fondamentale, e che la costituzione recepisce e formalizza in un articolato espressivo. Per meglio intenderci su questo delicato punto essenziale, il lettore faccia conto di essere stato incaricato di scrivere il testo della costituzione: è davanti al foglio bianco e può scriverci ciò che ritenga opportuno, senza avere alcun punto di riferimento. Metterà sotto forma di articoli successivi la sua concezione di vita politica, sociale ed economica. Questi sono appunto i concetti meta giuridici, la Weltanschauung.

È evidente come differenti modi di concepire questi principi siano inevitabilmente conflittuali e non possano coesistere, generando quindi situazioni di tensione sui principi primi che poi possono trarre spunto da banalissimi fatti contingenti.

Un caso da manuale potrebbe essere il “Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission” al momento in discussione presso la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti.

In secondo luogo, tutte le componenti devono aver accettato nella sostanza la regola base della democrazia, in accordo alla quale esiste la maggioranza e la opposizione. Se è vero che senza comunanza di principi meta – giuridici non può esistere democrazia, è altrettanto vero che essa non possa sussistere senza comunanza ed accettazione del metodo democratico. È evidente come, per fare un esempio, come un partito rivoluzionario sia inconciliabile con un sistema democratico, perché tende a sovvertire il rapporto maggioranza / opposizione determinato in via elettorale con l’uso della violenza, magari quella della piazza, oppure di una stampa violenta e menzognera.

* * * * * * * *

Queste scarne considerazioni, sicuramente non esaustive del problema, sono alla base di ciò che Tocqueville definiva come dittatura della maggioranza oppure come ‘dittatura della minoranza‘. Due modalità degenerative del sistema democratico.

Ebbene, i liberal democratici hanno nel loro dna i residuati giacobini della rivoluzione, ossia di un movimento in cui una piccola minoranza si impadronisce con la violenza del potere, alla faccia della democrazia.

*

«The hidden donors to a prominent anti-Trump “resistance” organization are revealed in unredacted tax forms obtained by the Washington Free Beacon»

*

«The Center for Community Change Action, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive community organizing group that does not reveal its donors, has been involved in direct action against President Donald Trump and Republicans before and after the November elections. The organization’s members sit on the boards of other prominent liberal activist groups.»

*

«The Free Beacon has obtained the group’s unredacted 2015 tax forms that shed light on its funders, who provide millions of dollars in assistance. The group appears to rely heavily on a few major liberal foundations, organizations, and unions»

*

«The Center for Community Change’s largest contribution was $3,000,000 from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which was initially created by Will Kellogg, the food manufacturer and founder of Kellogg Company. The Ford Foundation, which was first created by the founders of the Ford Motor Company, added a $2,350,000 donation. The Open Society Foundation, a foundation run by liberal billionaire mega-donor George Soros, gave $1,750,000 to the Center for Community Change»

*

«Deepak Bhargava, the executive director of the Center for Community Change, sits on the advisory board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundation»

*

«The Emergent Fund, a fund that consists of the Solidaire Network, the Threshold Foundation, and the Woman’s Donor Network, claims a goal of pushing back against “immediate threats” to “immigrants, women, Muslim and Arab-American communities, black people, LGBTQ communities, and all people of color.”»

* * * * * * * *

Poniamoci adesso una domanda.

Ma sono il popolo americano oppure Mr Soros ed i capi liberal democratici a fare guerra a Mr Trump?


Occhi della Guerra. 2017-10-07. Ecco chi finanzia la “resistenza” anti-Trump

Negli Stati Uniti esiste una potente rete impegnata nella “resistenza” contro il presidente Donald Trump e la sua amministrazione, costituita e finanziata da importanti e influenti donatori per milioni e milioni di dollari. Il Washington Free Beacon, infatti, è riuscito a ottenere la lista completa dei finanziatori del Center for Community Change Action, emanazione e costola del Center for Community Change, gruppo progressista molto attivo negli Stati Uniti con sede a Washington D.C e nemico giurato del tycoon. In buona sostanza, si tratta dell’ala più movimentista della cosiddetta sinistra liberal americana, quella che ha organizzato diverse manifestazioni di protesta contro l’amministrazione Trump dallo scorso novembre ad oggi. 

Milioni di dollari in donazioni. C’è anche Soros

Parliamo di cifre molto importanti: tra i maggiori finanziatori del movimento anti-Trump figurano la W.K Kellogg Foundation (3 milioni di dollari) e la Ford Foundation (2.350.000 dollari), oltre al magnate e finanziere George Soros che, attraverso la Open Society Foundations, ha donato all’organizzazione ben 1.750.000 dollari. La W.K Kellogg Foundation è l’associazione filantropica legata alla Kellogg’s e intitolata al suo fondatore, Will Keith Kellogg, colui che commercializzò i celebri Corn Flakes nel 1922; negli ultimi anni è diventata un importante partner della OSF di Soros, anche in questo caso per mezzo di cospicue donazioni

Gli altri donatori

Il Center for Community Change Action sembra essere il contenitore perfetto a cui destinare i fondi per tenere viva la resistenza “Anti-Trump” negli Stati Uniti. Oltre agli illustri donatori sopra citati, nella lista pubblicata dal Beacon troviamo anche California Endowment (524.500 dollari), la Marquerite Casey Foundation (515.00 dollari), il National Immigration Law Center (316.00 dollari), l’Every Citizen Sounds, associazione vicina a Hillary Clinton (1.750.000 dollari) e l’Open Society Policy Center (1.475.000), altro gruppo finanziato da George Soros. Le connessioni fra Soros e il Center For Comunnity Change non finiscono qui. La direttrice Deepak Bahrgava, infatti, è anche nel consiglio d’amministrazione della Open Society Foundations.

La “resistenza” anti Trump iniziata già a novembre

“Il centro – afferma Bahrgava sul sito dell’associazione progressista – rappresenta un ponte tra le organizzazioni comunitarie di base e le politiche pubbliche e nazionali. S’impegna inoltre con le organizzazioni partner nel costruire movimenti dal basso, il tutto unito alla capacità di saper contare nella Beltway [a Washington D.C] – una combinazione che non esiste altrove”.

All’indomani delle elezioni presidenziali, in un editoriale pubblicato sull’Huffington Post, l’organizzazione annunciava già la sua “guerra” contro il repubblicano senza ancora conoscere l’esito del voto: “Non abbiamo la sfera di cristallo che ci può dire come e quando l’onda di Trump si fermerà. Ma sappiamo una cosa: nella nuova America post-elettorale, dovremo lavorare duramente per rendere lui e le sue opinioni una parte deplorevole della storia e muoverci energicamente tutti insieme verso un futuro radioso. Come strategia a breve e a lungo termine, dobbiamo continuare a stigmatizzare la violenza e l’odio che Trump ha catalizzato, non solo per garantire che non venga eletto, ma per assicurarci che tutto questo venga sradicato”, annunciava il portavoce del movimento. 

Per perseguire questi obiettivi, pare proprio che il Center for Community Change Action possa contare su milioni di dollari in donazioni elargiti da finanzieri e speculatori come Soros, mettendo in atto una lotta politica su più livelli. Una strategia mirata, in grado di raccogliere e unire i movimenti e le organizzazioni più piccole con la capacità di influenzare le scelte politiche e fare pressione a livelli più alti. L’obiettivo finale è quello di isolare Trump e costringerlo a dimettersi. 


The Washington Free Bacon. 2017-10-04. Donors of Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Group Revealed

The hidden donors to a prominent anti-Trump “resistance” organization are revealed in unredacted tax forms obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Center for Community Change Action, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive community organizing group that does not reveal its donors, has been involved in direct action against President Donald Trump and Republicans before and after the November elections. The organization’s members sit on the boards of other prominent liberal activist groups.

The Free Beacon has obtained the group’s unredacted 2015 tax forms that shed light on its funders, who provide millions of dollars in assistance. The group appears to rely heavily on a few major liberal foundations, organizations, and unions.

The Center for Community Change’s largest contribution was $3,000,000 from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which was initially created by Will Kellogg, the food manufacturer and founder of Kellogg Company. The Ford Foundation, which was first created by the founders of the Ford Motor Company, added a $2,350,000 donation. The Open Society Foundation, a foundation run by liberal billionaire mega-donor George Soros, gave $1,750,000 to the Center for Community Change.

Other donors to the organization include the California Endowment, which gave $524,500; the Marquerite Casey Foundation, which gave $515,000; Fidelity Charitable Gift, which donated $505,100 (Note: Fidelity itself did not donate, this figure reflects private individuals who used the company as a charitable vehicle for their own donations.); and the National Immigration Law Center, which gave $316,000.

The Center for Community Change Action, the “social welfare” (c)(4) arm of the group, additionally relies on a handful of donors for almost all of its funding, according to its documents that do not include the privacy redactions.

Donors to its “social welfare” arm in 2015 included Every Citizen Counts ($1,750,000 contribution), a nonprofit that was created by allies of Hillary Clinton to mobilize Latino and African-American voters; the Open Society Policy Center ($1,475,000), another Soros group; the Sixteen Thirty Fund ($610,000), a progressive advocacy group; Center for Community Change ($150,000); Services Employees International Union (SEIU) ($150,000); Atlantic Philanthropies ($75,000); and the Tides Foundation ($50,000), the largest liberal donor-advised network, among other funders.

The Center for Community Change Action has been involved with anti-Trump campaigns for some time now. The group’s members also sit on the advisory boards of other prominent liberal organizations.

Deepak Bhargava, the executive director of the Center for Community Change, sits on the advisory board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

The “Families Fight Back” voter campaign was launched during the 2016 presidential election by the Center for Community Change Action, the Latino Victory Project, an immigration group co-founded by actress Eva Longoria, and America’s Voice, a group that fights for a “direct, fair, and inclusive road to citizenship for immigrants in the United States without papers.”

Soros, who last year vowed to spend $15 million to court Hispanic voters, was for months the sole funder of the Immigrant Voters Win PAC, which was part of the “Families Fight Back” campaign.

Others involved with the Center for Community Change sit on boards of other resistance groups.

The Emergent Fund, a fund that consists of the Solidaire Network, the Threshold Foundation, and the Woman’s Donor Network, claims a goal of pushing back against “immediate threats” to “immigrants, women, Muslim and Arab-American communities, black people, LGBTQ communities, and all people of color.”

The Emergent Fund’s advisory board, which decides what organizations receive money from the group, features individuals from a number of prominent liberal organizations.

Charlene Sinclair, the director of reinvestment at the Center for Community Change, sits on the board of directors of the Emergent Fund, which surpassed its initial fundraising goal of $500,000 following its inception and quickly approved $205,000 in rapid-response grants at the end of last year.

The Emergent Fund gives grants ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 and has provided financing to Black Lives Matter; the Center for Media Justice, which was created to “organize the most under-represented communities in a national movement for media rights”; the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative; and United We Dream, the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the United States.

The Center for Community Change later joined United We Dream for nationwide immigration protests leading up to Trump’s inauguration. United We Dream was additionally behind “sanctuary campus” anti-Trump protests across the country to protect undocumented students.

Christina Jimenez, the co-founder and managing director of the United We Dream Network, herself attended high school and college as an undocumented immigrant.

The Center for Community Change did not return a request for comment by press time.

UPDATE 10:30 AM: Following publication, a representative from Fidelity Charitable said that the donations under their name was recommended from individual donors who have donor-advised fund accounts with the group, and do not represent the views or endorsement of Fidelity Charitable or Fidelity Investments.

Ford additionally added that although the charity was started by Ford family members, it is no longer connected to the Ford Motor Company.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Trump è il colpevole di ciò che fece Weinstein. – Jane Fonda.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-13.

2017-10-16__donne democratiche 001

Leggiamo, sorpresi, perplessi e divertiti, questo articolo comparso su Adnk, che riporta chiosando una intervista rilasciata da Mrs Jane Fonda, classe 1937.

Caso Weinstein, Jane Fonda punta il dito contro Trump

«Lo sapeva da un anno e ora si vergogna di se stessa per non aver parlato prima. Una Jane Fonda commossa rivela alla Cnn di essere a conoscenza delle presunte molestie sessuali di Harvey Weinstein, pur non essendo mai stata vittima delle sue avance. Ma la realtà è che cose del genere accadono ovunque, non di rado, e l’elezione di Trump ha contribuito in un certo senso a ‘legittimare’ certi comportamenti da parte di uomini con un minimo di potere.

Ad aver parlato all’attrice premio Oscar di un’esperienza inquietante con il mogul di Hollywood, finito al centro di uno scandalo che giorno dopo giorno si arricchisce di nuovi particolari, è stata Rosanna Arquette. La Corie di ‘A piedi nudi nel parco’ si è rifiutata di raccontare in pubblico le confidenze dell’amica e collega e dice di non averne parlato prima perché, non essendo capitato a lei, non le sembrava opportuno. Ma ha raccontato di essere stata lei stessa vittima di molestie e abusi sessuali quando aveva 8 anni.

Ed ecco la bomba. Riferendosi a quanto raccontato su Weinstein, ha detto: “Non pensate che questo sia un unico terribile incidente. E non accade solo a Hollywood ma ovunque, negli uffici e nelle imprese di tutto il mondo, nei bar, nei ristoranti e nei negozi. Le donne vengono aggredite, abusate, molestate e viste come semplici oggetti sessuali, pronte a soddisfare il desiderio di un uomo”. E da questo punto di vista l’elezione di Donald Trump a presidente ha segnato una battuta d’arresto nello sforzo di combattere tale comportamento.

In fondo esistono prove di comportamenti simili da parte dell’attuale presidente americano, prosegue l’attrice 79enne. E fa riferimento a quella registrazione in cui l’allora candidato repubblicano raccontava del suo tentativo di sedurre una donna sposata e diceva: “Quando sei una star puoi fare quello che vuoi, ci lasciano fare”. “Puoi fare qualsiasi cosa”, si vantava. Secondo la Fonda molti uomini si dicono “Beh, il nostro presidente lo fa ed è stato eletto anche dopo che la gente ha scoperto che era un molestatore, quindi posso farlo anche io”.»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di ragionare, anche se di questi tempi è moda desueta.

In primo luogo, Mrs Jane Fonda asserirebbe di essere stata a conoscenza da un anno dei reati imputati a Mr Harvey Weinstein. Ma la legge americana impone la denuncia ai cittadini che siano venuti conoscenza di un possibile fatto penalmente rilevante. Si constata come Mrs Jane Fonda non abbia osservato la legge.

In secondo luogo, Mrs Jane Fonda asserirebbe: “Non pensate che questo sia un unico terribile incidente. E non accade solo a Hollywood ma ovunque, negli uffici e nelle imprese di tutto il mondo, nei bar, nei ristoranti e nei negozi“. Con questa affermazione Mrs Jane Fonda dice di essere a conoscenza di casi analoghi avvenuti in altri luoghi, maniere e circostanze, ma anche in queste occasioni non si è peritata di avvisare la magistratura. Ma, verrebbe il dubbio, Mrs Jane Fonda era stata testimone oculare dei fatti ovvero li aveva appresi di seconda mano? Bene: le cose riferite non costituiscono prova. Può testimoniare solo la persona che sia stata attrice del fatto.

In terzo luogo, è riportato che “esistono prove di comportamenti simili da parte dell’attuale presidente americano“. Se esistono prove, ebbene, che le produca. Sembrerebbe davvero inverosimile che i membri del partito democratico si lascerebbero sfuggire sì ghiotta occasione. Se nel giro di un anno non lo hanno ancora portato in tribunale è perché non esistono prove.

In quarto luogo, Mrs Jane Fonda asserirebbe che “il nostro presidente lo fa ed è stato eletto anche dopo che la gente ha scoperto che era un molestatore, quindi posso farlo anche io“. Sarebbe apologia di reato, in poche parole. C’è però una considerazione. I fatti imputati a Mr Harvey Weinstein risalgono a ben prima dell’elezione di Mr Trump alla presidenza degli Stati Uniti. Mrs Jane Fonda dovrebbe spiegarci come avrebbe fatto Mr Weinstein ad essere stato influenzato nell’agire da un qualcosa accaduto dopo che aveva già compiuto i fatti.

* * * * * * *

Interviste di questo tipo ci confermano nell’idea che una certa tipologia di persone altamente ideologizzate siano tetragone ad una possibilità razionale di revisione critica del proprio pensato.

Auguriamo lunga e serena vita a tutti, ma constatiamo anche come Sorella Morte prediliga falciare tra vecchietti e vecchiette rispetto alla popolazione giovane, contribuendo così non poco alla riduzione della base elettorale democratica.

Nota.

Riportiamo la più decente fotografia di Mrs Gwyneth Paltrow, che ha accusato Mr Harvey Weinstein di averle fatto delle avances. In verità non ci risulterebbe che la validità di un’attrice la si misuri dalla qualità di epidermide esposta a tutta vista. Né ci risulterebbe che Mdm Curie abbia posato nuda per ottenere prima il Premio Nobel per la fisica e quindi quello per la Chimica: eppure viveva in un’epoca oscurantista, maschilista e persono omofoba.

Se pubblicassimo le altre ci chiuderebbero il sito. A nostro sommesso parere, Mrs Gwyneth Paltrow sembrerebbe essere alquanto dissimile da una pudibonda suora clarissa. Usualemnte, ciò che è esposto è in vendita.

2017-10-_16__gwyneth paltrow nude 04

 

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa ed Israele lasciano l’Unesco.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela

2017-10-12.

Unesco 001

«The US withdrawal will become effective at the end of December 2018 – until then, the US will remain a full member»

*

«The US will establish an observer mission at the Paris-based organisation to replace its representation»

*

«Hours after the US announced its withdrawal, the Israelis joined in, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying he had instructed his foreign ministry to begin preparations to leave»

*

«Unesco is an easy target for US President Donald Trump – it is a multilateral body with educational and developmental goals like promoting sex education, literacy and equality for women»

*

«The US withdrawal will be seen by many as a manifestation of Mr Trump’s “America First” approach and his across-the-board hostility to multilateral organisations; the irony being that Unesco is part of the international architecture that the US helped to establish in the wake of World War Two.»

*

«But it is the organisation’s perceived anti-Israel bias that is the fundamental issue here. It has condemned Israel in the past for its activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and earlier this year it designated the old city of Hebron a Palestinian World Heritage Site – a step Israel insisted denied centuries of Jewish history there, not least the Tomb of the Patriarchs that dates back to biblical times.»

*

«Unesco head Irina Bokova earlier called the US withdrawal a matter of “profound regret”. …. She admitted, however, that “politicisation” had “taken its toll” on the organisation in recent years.»

* * * * * * * *

In passato l’Unesco ha accontentato gli Stati Uniti accogliendo tra le sue attività

«Promoting pluralism, gender equality and cultural diversity in the media».

Ma non si vive di solo sesso.

*

«In 2011, Palestine became a UNESCO member following a vote in which 107 member states supported and 14 opposed. Laws passed in the United States in 1990 and 1994 mean that it cannot contribute financially to any UN organisation that accepts Palestine as a full member. As a result, it withdrew its funding which accounted for about 22% of UNESCO’s budget. Israel also reacted to Palestine’s admittance to UNESCO by freezing Israel payments to the UNESCO and imposing sanctions to the Palestinian Authority, claiming that Palestine’s admittance would be detrimental “to potential peace talks”. Two years after they stopped paying their dues to UNESCO, US and Israel lost UNESCO voting rights in 2013 without losing the right to be elected (as a consequence, US was elected as a member of the Executive Board for the period 2016-2019)» [Fonte]

Sono passati ventitre anni da quando il Congresso aveva legiferato che gli Stati Uniti non possono contribuire finanziariamente ad organizzazioni che accettano come membro effettivo la Palestina.

Il Presidente Trump ha dato seguito, ha applicato, una legge già esistente.

Nota.

Nelle organizzazioni internazionali l’Occidente non ha più la maggioranza dei voti.

Piaccia o meno, si voglia o meno, occorre però prenderne atto.


Bbc. 2017-10-12. Israel to join US in quitting Unesco

Israel has said it will join the US in pulling out of the UN’s cultural organisation Unesco, after US officials cited “anti-Israel bias”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the US decision as “brave and moral”, a statement said.

The agency is known for designating world heritage sites such as Syria’s Palmyra and the US Grand Canyon.

Unesco head Irina Bokova earlier called the US withdrawal a matter of “profound regret”.

She admitted, however, that “politicisation” had “taken its toll” on the organisation in recent years.

The withdrawal represented a loss to the “UN family” and to multilateralism, Ms Bokova added.

The US withdrawal will become effective at the end of December 2018 – until then, the US will remain a full member. The US will establish an observer mission at the Paris-based organisation to replace its representation, the state department said.

Hours after the US announced its withdrawal, the Israelis joined in, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying he had instructed his foreign ministry to begin preparations to leave.

As well as accusing Unesco of bias, the US state department said it was also concerned about mounting financial arrears at the agency and said it should be reformed.

The decision follows a string of Unesco decisions that have drawn criticism from the US and Israel.

In 2011 the US cut its funding to the agency – slashing its budget by 22% – in protest at its decision to grant full membership to the Palestinians.

And last year, Israel suspended co-operation with Unesco after the agency adopted a controversial resolution which made no reference to Jewish ties to a key holy site in Jerusalem.

The resolution also criticised Israel’s activities at holy places in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.

Then earlier this year, Mr Netanyahu condemned Unesco for declaring the Old City of Hebron in the West Bank a Palestinian World Heritage site.

He accused Unesco of ignoring Judaism’s ancient connection to the city, which includes the crypt where its matriarchs and patriarchs are buried.

The US withdrawal is also motivated by a desire to stop accruing arrears to the agency, Foreign Policy magazine reported. The US cut funding of more than $80m (£60m) of funding to the agency amid the furore over Palestinian membership six years ago, but continues to be charged, and now owes more than $500m, the magazine said.

Mr Trump has criticised what he sees as a disproportionate contribution by the US to UN institutions. The US funds 22% of the UN’s regular budget and 28% of UN peacekeeping.

The decision to pull out of Unesco was applauded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which said that for years, the agency had “betrayed its original laudatory mission… and chosen instead to unfairly target the Middle East’s lone democracy, Israel”.

The US was a founding member of Unesco. The Reagan administration withdrew from the organisation in 1984 – accusing the agency of corruption and an ideological bias towards the then Soviet Union – but the US rejoined in 2002.

Unesco is in the process of choosing a new leader, with Qatari and French former ministers Hamad bin Abdulaziz al-Kawari and Audrey Azoulay neck-and-neck in the contest to replace Ms Bokova.

*

‘An easy target’ [By Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent]

Unesco is an easy target for US President Donald Trump – it is a multilateral body with educational and developmental goals like promoting sex education, literacy and equality for women.

The US withdrawal will be seen by many as a manifestation of Mr Trump’s “America First” approach and his across-the-board hostility to multilateral organisations; the irony being that Unesco is part of the international architecture that the US helped to establish in the wake of World War Two.

But it is the organisation’s perceived anti-Israel bias that is the fundamental issue here. It has condemned Israel in the past for its activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and earlier this year it designated the old city of Hebron a Palestinian World Heritage Site – a step Israel insisted denied centuries of Jewish history there, not least the Tomb of the Patriarchs that dates back to biblical times.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Liberal democratici in fricassea. Il Caso Harvey Weinstein.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-11.

2017-10-11__McGowan__001

«Jennifer Lawrence: “Sono rimasta profondamente turbata nel sentire le notizie sul comportamento di Harvey Weinstein” ha affermato l’attrice a Variety “Ho lavorato con Harvey cinque anni fa e non ho subito alcuna forma di molestia né sono stata a conoscenza di questi atteggiamenti. Tutto ciò è semplicemente sconvolgente. Il mio cuore è per tutte le donne colpite da queste terribili azioni. E voglio ringraziarle per il loro coraggio nell’uscire allo scoperto” 

*

Cnn. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein is now a big problem for Democrats

Mrs Rose McGowan, attricetta di basso calibro, classe 1973, ha accusato Mr Harvey Weinstein di un sexual harassment che sarebbe avvenuto venticinque anni or sono. Alle sue accuse si sono subito associate numerose sue colleghe.

Asia Argento accusa di stupro Harvey Weinstein: “Ora lasciatemi in pace”

* * * * * * *

«Harvey Weinstein, CBE (honorary) (born March 19, 1952) is an American film producer and former film studio executive. He co-founded Miramax, which produced several popular independent films including Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The Crying Game, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. He and his brother Bob were co-chairmen of The Weinstein Company, from 2005 to 2017 when he was fired by the board. He won an Academy Award for producing Shakespeare in Love, and garnered seven Tony Awards for producing a variety of winning plays and musicals, including The Producers, Billy Elliot the Musical, and August: Osage County. …

In the early 1980s, Miramax acquired the rights to two British films of benefit shows filmed for the human rights organization Amnesty International. Working closely with Martin Lewis, the producer of the original films, the Weinstein brothers edited the two films into one movie tailored for the American market. ….

On March 29, 2005, it was announced that the Weinstein brothers would leave Miramax on September 30 to form their own production company, named The Weinstein Company, with several other media executives, directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, and Colin Vaines, who had successfully run the production department at Miramax for ten years and moved with the brothers to head development in The Weinstein Company. The board of The Weinstein Company fired him on October 8, 2017 following allegations of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.» [Fonte]

*

Ma cosa mai è il “sexual harassment”?

Il Legal Dictionary così lo definisce:

«Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. ….

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment. ….

Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest. Consent can be given to a relationship and then withdrawn when the relationship ends. Once it is withdrawn, continued romantic or sexual words or actions are not protected by the past relationship and may be sexual harassment.»

* * * * * * *

La prima e fondamentale considerazione che sorge spontanea è l’ambigua definizione di carattere soggettivo.

Il termine “unwelcome” è fortemente soggettivo: la stessa identica azione può essere per una persona e può non esserlo per un’altra.

Esattamente come è soggettivo il fatto che “they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest“. Una cosa è ricevere minacce esplicite, documentabili, ed una totalmente differente essersele immaginate.

La seconda considerazione, altrettanto fondamentale, è la documentabilità dei fatti. Un codice penale, e quindi una corte penale che lo applica, deve, dovrebbe, giudicare su fatti, non su intenzioni vere o presunte. Non solo, ma dovrebbe essere onere dell’accusa il produrre prove probanti: la sola denuncia si presta troppo ad essere più o meno artatamente manipolata, oppure anche inventata di sana pianta.

La terza considerazione consiste nel fatto che nell’ultimo decennio le corti penali americane hanno accettato come prova probante la sola denuncia della femmina, senza sentire l’esigenza che tale denuncia fosse sostenuta da prove o testimonianze, anche quando. Era sufficiente che giudice e corte fossero liberal democratici.

* * *

Di fronte ad un così duttile strumento per l’eliminazione degli avversari politici, i liberal democratici hanno fatto del sexual harassment la punta di lancia della loro ideologia. È diventato per loro una dei peggiori reati con i quali incapsulare i propri avversari politici non si dice fino alla condanna, ma almeno ad una lunga trafila giudiziaria, esaltata e sbandierata dai media.

Adesso si ritrovano nelle canne più nere. Una delle loro punte di diamante, il loro massimo finanziatore, è accusato proprio di quello per cui loro hanno eliminato i loro passati nemici politici, creando pericolosissimi precedenti.

«For years, Harvey Weinstein, a film and television producer at the apex of the American entertainment industry, has lavished money and attention on the Democratic Party’s biggest names and causes»

*

«Mr. Weinstein has given more than $1.4 million to candidates, parties and political action committees since 1990, Variety reported, citing figures from the Center for Responsive Politics»

*

«Among his biggest beneficiaries are President Barack Obama, whose daughter was an intern with Mr. Weinstein’s company this year. At a career workshop for high schoolers at the White House, where Mr. Weinstein was a guest several times, Michelle Obama called him “a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”»

*

«Mr. Weinstein is also a yearslong friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whose 2016 presidential campaign he was a major contributor and driving force, holding a fund-raiser in his home at one point. He’s raised money for Planned Parenthood, helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name and distributed a film, “The Hunting Ground,” about campus sexual assault.»

*

«Harvey Weinstein’s alleged pattern of sexual harassment was apparently an open secret in Hollywood for decades»

*

«The RNC was quick to call on Democrats to return Harvey Weinstein’s donations after the sex scandal broke. And you know what? The Republicans are right on this one»

*

«the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years»

*

«In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable»

*

Poniamoci adesso la domanda che sgorgherebbe lecita:

“Chi e come ha convinto Mrs Rose McGowan a denunciare un fatto che sarebbe accaduto venticinque anni or sono?”

Deve essere stato uno che se la lega al dito.

Uno che abbia la volontà di distruggere Hollywood, tempio dei liberal democratici, con tutte le star che avevano fatto campagna elettorale per Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Uno che abbia la volontà di distruggere la macchina di reperimento fondi del partito democratico: tutti i suoi donatori sono adesso vulnerabili.

Uno che abbia voglia di aizzare, e possa farlo, il Republican National Committee ad obbligare i democratici a rendere ogni quattrino ricevuto. Il Presidente Mrs Ronna Romney McDaniel non a caso è nipote di Mitt  Romney.

*

Che Mrs Rose McGowan sia una timida educanda non venitelo a raccontarlo.

Questa è solo una delle foto più decenti. Sarebbe costei quella che si lamenterebbe, frignando, di aver subito un sexual harassment?

2017-10-11__Trump__001


The New York Times. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein’s Money Shouldn’t Buy Democrats’ Silence

«For years, Harvey Weinstein, a film and television producer at the apex of the American entertainment industry, has lavished money and attention on the Democratic Party’s biggest names and causes.

Mr. Weinstein has given more than $1.4 million to candidates, parties and political action committees since 1990, Variety reported, citing figures from the Center for Responsive Politics. Among his biggest beneficiaries are President Barack Obama, whose daughter was an intern with Mr. Weinstein’s company this year. At a career workshop for high schoolers at the White House, where Mr. Weinstein was a guest several times, Michelle Obama called him “a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”

Mr. Weinstein is also a yearslong friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whose 2016 presidential campaign he was a major contributor and driving force, holding a fund-raiser in his home at one point. He’s raised money for Planned Parenthood, helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name and distributed a film, “The Hunting Ground,” about campus sexual assault. ….»


The Washington Post. 2017-10-06. A liberal double standard on Harvey Weinstein? It’s not that simple.

«Harvey Weinstein’s alleged pattern of sexual harassment was apparently an open secret in Hollywood for decades. But the rest of us know about it because the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey exposed it last week. ….

Weinstein, a longtime Democratic donor who presents himself as a champion of progressive causes ….

This reporting reality complicates the double-standard narrative advanced by some conservatives, who point to the absence of critical commentary by late-night comedians, many actors and “Saturday Night Live” as evidence that the media is insufficiently outraged by Weinstein’s alleged behavior ….»


Daily Best. 2017-10-06. Yes, Hillary—and the Democrats—Do Have a Harvey Weinstein Problem

«The RNC was quick to call on Democrats to return Harvey Weinstein’s donations after the sex scandal broke. And you know what? The Republicans are right on this one.

Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable. ….»


Cnn. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein is now a big problem for Democrats

«Thursday’s New York Times report detailing decades of inappropriate sexual conduct toward women by Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein puts Democrats in a very uncomfortable position.

Weinstein has, for years and years, been a major — and high profile — Democratic donor and fundraiser. He has doled out hundreds of thousands — and helped raise millions — for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Weinstein had made 185 individual donations to a variety of Democratic candidate and liberal-aligned organizations dating back to the early 1990s.

He’s also hosted a series of fundraisers at his various homes around the country over the years. In 2013, he hosted then-President Barack Obama for a fundraiser at his New York City apartment. In 2012, Obama did a fundraiser for his re-election bid at Weinstein’s home in Connecticut. During the 2016 campaign, Weinstein held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign at his New York City apartment and another with fashion mogul Anna Wintour.

Those ties are very problematic now given the seriousness of the allegations and Weinstein’s statement in which he announces he is stepping away from the movie studio to “conquer my demons.”

The initial response from Democratic politicians is to distance themselves from Weinstein by returning donations from him. In the wake of Thursday’s story, Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico an Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts all signaled they will be sending back Weinstein’s money or directing it to a charitable cause.

You can expect lots and lots more Democratic politicians and organizations — Weinstein gave heavily to the Democratic National Committee, among others — to follow the lead of that quartet of senators.

And it’s hard to see how Obama and the Clintons — Weinstein is a long time pal of Bill and Hillary — can avoid putting out statements condemning him for his behavior. That’s especially true since Weinstein isn’t really denying the Times story; he’s threatening a lawsuit simply saying the news organization didn’t give him enough time to respond.

But there’s more to this story than simply issuing statements condemning Weinstein or returning his now-tainted money. These paragraphs from the Times story gets to that broader point:

“In interviews, some of the former employees who said they had troubling experiences with Mr. Weinstein asked a common question: How could allegations repeating the same pattern — young women, a powerful male producer, even some of the same hotels — have accumulated for almost three decades? ….»

[Questo testo è stato preso proprio dalla Cnn].

«he hosted then-President Barack Obama for a fundraiser at his New York City apartment»

*

«Obama did a fundraiser for his re-election bid at Weinstein’s home in Connecticut»

*

«Weinstein held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign at his New York City apartment»


The Wall Street Journal. 2017-10-10. As Its Namesake Founder Becomes a Liability, Weinstein Co. Weighs Name Change.

Harvey Weinstein’s name is being scrapped from future movie and TV projects

*

LOS ANGELES—Weinstein Co. is considering changing its name as it moves to distance itself from former co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, the larger-than-life Hollywood mogul who was once the studio’s biggest asset, but who has become its biggest liability.

A Weinstein-free name is in the works as the studio has enlisted two ad agencies to develop a new brand identity, a person close to the company said. In addition, Harvey Weinstein’s name is being scrubbed from the credits of coming film and television projects, people familiar.

 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump abolisce i Labor-Management Forums.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-07.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC
2 Donald Trump photographed at the Trump Tower on 5th Ave. in Manhattan, NYC on Monday, September 21, 2015. (Damon Winter/ The New York Times)

Dobbiamo dare atto a Mr Obama di aver portato alla perfezione la già consumata arte di istituire enti inutili, nei quali parcheggiare persone di chiarissima e specchiata fede liberal.

La tecnica era semplice e ripetitiva.

Dapprima di istituisce un ente inutile, poi gli si conferiscono fondi generosi, quindi si stabilisce che le pubbliche istituzioni debbano mandatoriamente sentirne il parere consultivo dapprima, vincolante dopo.

In questa maniera qualsiasi siano le persone elette, risultano essere vincolate nel loro legiferare da quelli che occupano questa catena di enti, agenzie, etc, chiaramente partitici.

In pratica, si è tentato di instaurare una vera e propria dittatura, ammantata di democrazia.

L’elezione di Mr Trump alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti ha posto fine a simile mercimonio. Ma ha anche rotto le uova nel paniere dei liberal democratici.

Se si riuscisse a comprendere a fondo cosa aveva impiantato Mr Obama, non si potrebbe essere altro che sostenitori di quanto stia facendo Mr Trump.

Si capirebbe anche donde venga l’astio rancoroso, l’odio viscerale che i liberal democratici nutrono nei suoi confronti: gli ha rotto il giocattolo. Ancora un po’ di tempo, ed anche i liberal democratici dovranno andare a lavorare per vivere: lavare le automobili, nettare le strade, scaricare sacchi di cemento dai camion delle costruzioni. Sempre poi che qualcuno voglia dar loro lavoro. La gente ha memoria buona.

* * *

«Revocation Of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management Forums»

*

«The United States Government should spend tax dollars responsibly, efficiently, and in the public interest.»

*

«The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (Council) and related agency-level labor-management forums have consumed considerable managerial time and taxpayer resources, but they have not fulfilled their goal of promoting collaboration in the Federal workforce.»

*

«Public expenditures on the Council and related forums have produced few benefits to the public, and they should, therefore, be discontinued.»

* * *

Basta leggere l’incipit dell’Executive Order 13522—Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services, December 9, 2009, per rendersi conto del marchingegno concepito dalla fervida mente dell’allora Presidente Obama. (Mr Obama ha scritto una sbrodellata di non si quante cartelle. Tutto il sordido deve essere diluito in un mare di parole inutili).

«Federal employees and their union representatives are an essential source of front-line ideas and information about the realities of delivering Government services to the American people. A nonadversarial forum for managers, employees, and employees’ union representatives to discuss Government operations will promote satisfactory labor relations and improve the productivity and effectiveness of the Federal Government. Labor-management forums, as complements to the existing collective bargaining process, will allow managers and employees to collaborate in continuing to deliver the highest quality services to the American people. Management should discuss workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions.

The purpose of this order is to establish a cooperative and productive form of labor-management relations throughout the executive branch.»

In poche parole, traducendo dal politichese, governo e gestione dei dipendenti federali sarebbe passato in gestione ai Forum. I dipendenti federali saranno gestiti da quanti siano stati eletti dal popolo, dai Contribuenti, o direttamente oppure tramite loro delegati.

*

Bene.

Adesso il Presidente Trump ha abolito codesto carrozzone, e la motivazione è davvero interessante.

«The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (Council) and related agency-level labor-management forums have consumed considerable managerial time and taxpayer resources, but they have not fulfilled their goal of promoting collaboration in the Federal workforce.»

America first‘ si coniuga con ‘taxpayer first“.


The White House. 2017-09-27. Presidential Executive Order on the Revocation of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management Forums

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

Revocation Of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management Forums.

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.  Policy.  The United States Government should spend tax dollars responsibly, efficiently, and in the public interest.  The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (Council) and related agency-level labor-management forums have consumed considerable managerial time and taxpayer resources, but they have not fulfilled their goal of promoting collaboration in the Federal workforce.  Public expenditures on the Council and related forums have produced few benefits to the public, and they should, therefore, be discontinued.

Sec. 2.  Revocations.  (a)  Executive Order 13522 of December 9, 2009 (Creating Labor-Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services), as extended by Executive Order 13708 of September 30, 2015 (Continuance or Reestablishment of Certain Federal Advisory Committees), which established the Council and implemented labor-management forums throughout the executive branch, is hereby revoked.

(b)  The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and heads of executive departments and agencies shall, consistent with law, promptly move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, programs, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 13522.

Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall abrogate any collective bargaining agreements in effect on the date of this order.

(b)  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.

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

(d)  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,

September 29, 2017.

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Proseguono le nomine di Giudici nelle Corti di Appello.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-06.

Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

Il Presidente Trump ha proceduto a nominare otto Giudici delle Corti di Appello, nomine che dovranno essere ratificate dal Senato.

Stuart Kyle Duncan of Louisiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Kurt D. Engelhardt of Louisiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

James C. Ho of Texas will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Don R. Willett of Texas will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Gregory E. Maggs of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Barry W. Ashe of Louisiana will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Daniel D. Domenico of Colorado will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Howard C. Nielson, Jr., of Utah will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Ryan T. Holte of Ohio will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

* * *

Con queste nomine la U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit risulterà essere blindata per un quarantennio ad infiltrazioni liberal democratiche.

«The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in case citations, 5th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

    Eastern District of Louisiana

    Middle District of Louisiana

    Western District of Louisiana

    Northern District of Mississippi

    Southern District of Mississippi

    Eastern District of Texas

    Northern District of Texas

    Southern District of Texas

    Western District of Texas» [Fonte]

2017-10-06__Quinto Circuito __001

Nota.

Selezione sulla sola base del merito. Nessuna ‘quota‘. L’America ritorna ad avere una amministrazione della giustizia equa e giusta.


White House. 2017-09-27. President Donald J. Trump Announces Eighth Wave of Judicial Candidates

If confirmed, Stuart Kyle Duncan of Louisiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Kyle Duncan is currently a partner at Schaerr Duncan LLP, where he represents clients in trial and appellate litigation. Before joining the firm, Mr. Duncan served for two years as general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, where he managed Becket’s nationwide public-interest litigation. Mr. Duncan previously served for three years as the Solicitor General and Appellate Chief of the Louisiana Department of Justice, where he represented Louisiana in a wide range of appellate matters in State and Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Before that, Mr. Duncan spent four years as an assistant professor of law at the University of Mississippi Law School. Mr. Duncan also spent two years as an associate-in-law at Columbia University Law School, three years as an Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General in the Texas Attorney General’s Office, and one year in the appellate practice group at Vinson & Elkins LLP. After graduating from law school, Mr. Duncan clerked for Louisiana-based Circuit Judge John M. Duhé, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Duncan has argued two cases in the United States Supreme Court, and has acted as lead counsel in numerous other cases in that Court, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014), in which he successfully led litigation challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on behalf of Hobby Lobby Stores. Mr. Duncan earned his B.A., summa cum laude, from Louisiana State University and his J.D. from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and served as executive senior editor of the Louisiana Law Review. Mr. Duncan subsequently earned an LL.M. from Columbia University Law School.

If confirmed, Kurt D. Engelhardt of Louisiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Kurt Engelhardt currently serves as the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December 2001. During his tenure on the bench, Judge Engelhardt has served on the Judicial Conference Committee of Federal-State Jurisdiction, first appointed to that Committee by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2004, and re-appointed for a second term by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007. He also served as President of the New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association from 2011 to 2012. Before his appointment to the district court, Judge Engelhardt practiced commercial litigation in private practice—first at the law firm of Little & Metzger and later at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP. While in private practice, he was appointed by the governor to serve on the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which adjudicates statewide ethics complaints against judges. In 1998, the members of the Commission elected him to serve as its Chairman. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Engelhardt served as a law clerk to Judge Charles Grisbaum, Jr., on the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. He earned his B.A. and J.D. from Louisiana State University.

If confirmed, James C. Ho of Texas will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jim Ho is currently a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he serves as co-chair of the firm’s appellate and constitutional law practice group. Before joining the firm, Mr. Ho served as Solicitor General of Texas in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. Before relocating to Texas, Mr. Ho served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and as Chief Counsel to U.S. Senator John Cornyn on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Ho also served in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as a special assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and then as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Ho served as a law clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He earned a B.A. in Public Policy, with honors, from Stanford University and a J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.

If confirmed, Don R. Willett of Texas will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Justice Don Willett currently serves as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court. He was appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by Governor Perry in 2005, and was then elected to that position by the people of Texas in 2006 and 2012. Before assuming judicial office, Justice Willett held several other positions of public service. From 2003 to 2005, he was a Deputy Attorney General and chief legal counsel to the Attorney General of Texas, and before that, was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. Previously, Justice Willett served in the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Director of Law & Policy in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. From 1996 to 2000, Justice Willett was Director of Research & Special Projects for Governor Bush. Before entering public service, he practiced labor and employment law in the Austin office of Haynes and Boone, LLP. Justice Willett clerked for Judge Jerre S. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Justice Willett is a member of the American Law Institute and recently served as editor-in-chief of Judicature—The Scholarly Journal for Judges. He earned a B.B.A. from Baylor University, and then three degrees from Duke University: J.D. with honors, M.A. in political science, and LL.M. in Judicial Studies.

If confirmed, Gregory E. Maggs of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Professor Greg Maggs currently serves as the Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor of Law and Co-Director of the National Security & U.S. Foreign Relations Law LL.M. Program at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he has taught since 1993. At GWU, Professor Maggs teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, counterterrorism, military justice, and national security law. He is the co-author of a leading military law casebook, Modern Military Justice: Cases and Materials, and has published two related books, along with dozens of articles in the fields of constitutional law and national security. In addition to his academic work, Professor Maggs serves as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He received his commission in 1990 and was mobilized from 2007 to 2008. From 2007 to 2017, Professor Maggs served as a reserve trial and appellate military judge. Upon graduation from law school, he served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy and to Judge Joseph T. Sneed of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Professor Maggs earned his A.B., summa cum laude, from Harvard College, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, and was designated a John Harvard Scholar, and his J.D. from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, where he served as articles co-chair of the Harvard Law Review. He also earned a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College.

If confirmed, Barry W. Ashe of Louisiana will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Barry Ashe is a partner in the New Orleans office of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C., where his practice spans a broad range of complex civil and commercial law matters, in both State and Federal courts, at trial and on appeal. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Ashe served as a law clerk to Judge Carolyn Dineen King on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Prior to enrolling in law school, Mr. Ashe served for three years in the U.S. Navy, where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant and received an honorable discharge. Mr. Ashe earned his B.A. from Tulane University, summa cum laude, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa, and his J.D. from Tulane Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude, was inducted into the Order of the Coif, and served as the senior managing editor of the Tulane Law Review.

If confirmed, Daniel D. Domenico of Colorado will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Dan Domenico currently serves as managing partner of Kittredge LLC. From 2006 to 2015, Mr. Domenico served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he oversaw major litigation for the State and represented governors from both political parties. During his time as Solicitor General, he argued in State and Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and received the Supreme Court Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General. At the time of his appointment, he was the youngest state solicitor general in the country, and his nine years of service made him the longest serving solicitor general in Colorado history. He has also served as an adjunct professor of natural resources and advanced constitutional law at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law. Earlier in his career, Mr. Domenico was a law clerk to Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and an associate at Hogan & Hartson LLP. A native of Boulder, he earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and served as an editor of the Virginia Law Review.

If confirmed, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., of Utah will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Howard Nielson is currently a partner at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Nielson served in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Counsel to the Attorney General and later as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In addition, Mr. Nielson has taught courses in constitutional litigation, national security law, foreign relations law, and federal courts as a Distinguished Lecturer at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University. Earlier in his career, Mr. Nielson served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Nielson received his B.A. with university honors and summa cum laude from Brigham Young University and his J.D. with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was elected to Order of the Coif and served as Articles Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review.

If confirmed, Ryan T. Holte of Ohio will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Professor Ryan Holte currently serves as the David L. Brennan Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Technology at the University of Akron School of Law. Professor Holte teaches and researches in the areas of property and intellectual property law and is a recognized expert in these areas, completing numerous academic research fellowships and funded research grants. He also serves as general counsel, partner, and co-inventor of an electrical engineering technology company. Before joining the law faculty at Akron, Professor Holte served for four years on the faculty at Southern Illinois University School of Law, worked as a trial attorney at the United States Federal Trade Commission, and practiced law as an associate at Jones Day. He clerked for Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Loren A. Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Professor Holte earned his B.S. in engineering, magna cum laude, from the California Maritime Academy, and his J.D. from the University of California Davis School of Law, where he served as a staff editor of the UC Davis Business Law Journal.

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Medio Oriente, Russia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Putin il Grande. Bloomberg lo incorona Master of the Middle East.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-06.

Putin 1000

Intelligenti si nasce, non si diventa.

Ma la scuola del Kgb forma politici allo stato dell’arte.


Il politico è quell’uomo che sa conglutinare persone con idee e credenze differenti, che sa raccogliere consensi, che sa percepire cosa esattamente siano e vogliano i suoi interlocutori, è uomo che sa formare accordi: non compromessi, bensì accordi soddisfacenti per tutte le controparti.

Se però lo statista è sicuramente un uomo politico, altrettanto sicuramente è persona capace di orientare e guidare verso soluzioni convergenti ai suoi propri interessi. Lo statista pur stando attentamente a sentire, riesce a convincere tutti gli altri a perseguire con gioia i suoi propri interessi. Lo statista si erge di fronte la storia e la modula secondo i propri desiderata.

Sulla scena mondiale vi sono molti capi di stato, ben pochi politici, ed un solo statista: Mr Putin.

Bloomberg alla fine riconosce il Presidente Putin quale ‘Master of the Middle East’.

Ma siamo solo agli inizi.

* * * * * * * * * * *

«The Israelis and Turks, the Egyptians and Jordanians — they’re all beating a path to the Kremlin in the hope that Vladimir Putin, the new master of the Middle East, can secure their interests and fix their problems»

*

«The latest in line is Saudi King Salman, who this week is due to become the first monarch of the oil-rich kingdom to visit Moscow»

*

«It changed the reality, the balance of power on the ground»

*

«Putin has succeeded in making Russia a factor in the Middle East. That’s why you see a constant stream of Middle Eastern visitors going to Moscow»

*

«Moscow was a major power in the Middle East during the Cold War»

*

«The tables began to turn in 2013, when the U.S. under Obama decided not to attack Assad. Two years later, Putin sent troops and planes to defend him»

*

«Meanwhile the Saudis, who had financed rebels fighting against Assad, are cooperating with Russia in coaxing the opposition to unite for peace talks – which will likely cement the Syrian leader in power»

*

«Russia also rejected a U.S. demand to make the Euphrates river a dividing line between Syrian government troops and U.S.-supported forces in eastern Syria»

*

«Washington remains the indispensable power in the region …. The Kremlin is on everyone’s mind»

* * * * * * *

Andiamo al sodo e dimentichiamoci la propaganda liberal.

Mr Putin ha ottenuto in Medio Oriente una grande vittoria strategica. Potranno esserci altri alti e bassi, ma oramai non si può agire in Medio Oriente senza il suo consenso. E questo vale anche per gli americani.

Questi ultimi stanno pagando e ben salato il conto dell’idealismo dei liberal e della dabbenaggine politica di Mr Obama.

L’America paga a caro prezzo l’essersi consentita il lusso di avere i liberal democratici, con le loro ideologie utopiche e questa delirante sindrome del perdente mai rassegnato. Intaccare la figura carismatica del Presidente americano, in questo caso Mr Trump, significa aver intaccato il più potente motore del potere americano.

Ma ci si metta l’animo in pace. Questa è la realtà dei fatti.

Finita la partita per il Medio Oriente, Mr Putin sta iniziando quella per l’Europa.

Diamo tempo al tempo, ed a Bruxelles dovranno ripassarsi il russo.


→ Bloomberg. 2017-10-03. Putin Is Now Mr. Middle East, a Job No One Ever Succeeds At

– Saudi king’s first visit brings another Mideasterner to Moscow

– Russia a ‘nimble boxer’ vs musclebound U.S., diplomat says

*

The Israelis and Turks, the Egyptians and Jordanians — they’re all beating a path to the Kremlin in the hope that Vladimir Putin, the new master of the Middle East, can secure their interests and fix their problems.

The latest in line is Saudi King Salman, who this week is due to become the first monarch of the oil-rich kingdom to visit Moscow. At the top of his agenda will be reining in Iran, a close Russian ally seen as a deadly foe by most Gulf Arab states.

Until very recently, Washington stood alone as the go-to destination for such leaders. Right now, American power in the region is perceptibly in retreat — testimony to the success of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, which shored up President Bashar al-Assad after years of U.S. insistence that he must go.

“It changed the reality, the balance of power on the ground,” said Dennis Ross, who was America’s chief Mideast peace negotiator and advised several presidents from George H. W. Bush to Barack Obama. “Putin has succeeded in making Russia a factor in the Middle East. That’s why you see a constant stream of Middle Eastern visitors going to Moscow.”

Success brings its own problems. As conflicting demands pile up, it’s not easy to send all those visitors home satisfied. “The more you try to adopt a position of dealing with all sides, the more you find that it’s hard to play that game,’’ Ross said.

Moscow was a major power in the Middle East during the Cold War, arming Arab states against Israel. Its influence collapsed along with communism. When the U.S. invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, Russia was a bystander, unable to do more than protest.

The tables began to turn in 2013, when the U.S. under Obama decided not to attack Assad. Two years later, Putin sent troops and planes to defend him.

Getting Results

For the most part, America’s local allies were firmly in the Assad-must-go camp. They were disillusioned when U.S. military might wasn’t deployed to force him out.

Russia’s clout in the region has grown “because Obama allowed it to,’’ said Khaled Batarfi, a professor at Alfaisal University’s branch in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. “Unfortunately he withdrew to a great extent from the Middle East.’’

That view is widespread. It was bluntly expressed last month by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spent years urging American action against Assad. Talks with the U.S. “couldn’t get any results,’’ he said.

Turkey has now joined Russia and Iran in a plan to de-escalate the conflict. It’s “achieving a result,’’ Erdogan said. Two years ago, tensions between Putin and Erdogan had threatened to boil over, after the Turkish military shot down a Russian jet on the Syrian border. Last Friday, the Russian president flew to Ankara for dinner with his Turkish counterpart and “friend,’’ who’s agreed to buy Russian S-400 air defense missile systems, riling fellow NATO members.

‘Here’s the King’

Meanwhile the Saudis, who had financed rebels fighting against Assad, are cooperating with Russia in coaxing the opposition to unite for peace talks – which will likely cement the Syrian leader in power.

America’s Middle East allies mostly welcomed the change of U.S. president, and Donald Trump’s tough talk about challenging Iran. So far, though, he’s stuck close to his predecessor’s policy in Syria, concentrating on fighting Islamic State not Assad.

So, as the goal of regime-change in Syria recedes, priorities have shifted. The Saudis and other Arab Gulf powers are urging Russia to reduce Iran’s role in Syria, where Hezbollah and other Shiite militias supported by Tehran have provided shock troops for Assad’s offensive.

“Russia is better off not to be on one side of it. That’s the key message,’’ said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a U.A.E.-based political analyst. “Here is the king, representing Arab Gulf countries, representing a lot of geopolitical weight, coming to Russia. And Russia has to take that into consideration.’’

But Putin won’t shift his stance on Iran to accommodate Saudi wishes, according to a person close to the Kremlin.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has visited Russia four times in the past 18 months, has also found it hard to sway the Russian leader.

In August, Netanyahu told Putin that Iran’s growing foothold in Syria is “unacceptable.’’ In September he told CNN that the Iranians are trying to “colonize’’ Syria with the aim of “destroying us and conquering the Middle East.’’

Russia, though, refused his demand for a buffer zone inside Syria that would keep the forces of Iran and Hezbollah at least 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the Israeli border, a person familiar with the matter in Moscow said. Instead, Russia offered a 5-kilometer exclusion zone, the person said.

Russia also rejected a U.S. demand to make the Euphrates river a dividing line between Syrian government troops and U.S.-supported forces in eastern Syria. This has led to a race to capture territory from retreating Islamic State fighters in a strategic and oil-rich border region.

Yet Russia has succeeded in keeping open channels of communication to all sides, from Iran to Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian radical Islamist group Hamas to Israel, said Ayham Kamel, Middle East and North Africa director at Eurasia Group.

While Russia didn’t give way on the buffer zone, it has a tacit understanding that permits Israel to carry out airstrikes against Hezbollah in Syria, said Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, a research group set up by the Kremlin.

It’s been mediating, along with Egypt, to end the decade-old inter-Palestinian rift between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Putin invited rival Libyan factions to Moscow, after a series of peace efforts by other countries came to nothing. Russia has become a leading investor in oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan, and was one of the few world powers to refrain from condemning its recent vote on independence.

In economic terms, the contest for influence looks like an unequal one – America’s GDP is 13 times Russia’s. That’s not always the decisive factor, said Alexander Zotov, Moscow’s ambassador to Syria from 1989 to 1994.

“Sometimes you have two boxers coming out to the ring, one is huge with bulging muscles and the other is smaller but nimble, and has a better technique,’’ he said.

Russia’s rise came as U.S. policy makers grew preoccupied with Asia, and the American public tired of Middle East wars – something both Obama and Trump acknowledged.

“Washington remains the indispensable power in the region,’’ said Eurasia’s Kamel. But its commitment to traditional alliances is weakening, he said, and that’s encouraged regional leaders to hedge their bets. “The Kremlin is on everyone’s mind.’’

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Americani favorevoli all’accordo con i democratici. Poll: 71% Y, 8% N.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2047-09-26.

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__001

Con la solita sintesi lapidaria Mr Putin aveva definito ciò che sta succedendo negli Stati Uniti: «“political schizophrenia”».

Ricordiamo come secondo Treccani la schizofrenia altro non sia che:

«psicosi dissociativa caratterizzata da un processo di disgregazione (dissociazione) della personalità psichica; si manifesta con gravi disturbi dell’attività affettiva e del comportamento»

*

È da circa un anno che sia al Congresso sia in Senato, sia pur anche su tutti i media liberals, è in corso un qualcosa che assomiglia sempre più ad una guerra civile combattuta, almeno al momento, senza armi letali, senza strumenti bellici.

Se si potesse parlare senza l’uso della fraseologia politicamente corretta, si potrebbe dire che i parlamentari si stiano litigando come bagasce ai trogoli e, tutti presi dai motivi del contendere, ben poco facciano per dare un governo efficiente al paese.

I liberal hanno accusato il Presidente Trump di ogni possibile nefandezza, a partire dal sexual harassment fino all’intelligenza con i russi, senza peraltro riuscire a produrre uno straccetto di prova probante.

Diciamo pure che i liberal democratici proprio non sanno perdere.

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__002

*

I risultati del sondaggio eseguito da Nbc e dal Wall Street Journal sono però inequivocabili su come la stiano pensando gli americani.

Una larga maggioranza, sempre sopra il 60%, approva un accordo tra repubblicani e democratici sulla riforma dell’healthcare, la tassazione, l’immigrazione e la protezione ambientale. Ossia, su tutti i grandi temi interni al momento dibattuti nei ritagli di tempo lasciati dagli alterchi.

*

Il politico dovrebbe essere un personaggio che appiana le divergenze, coagula consensi, trova accordi proficui con chiunque: quindi, almeno a nostro sommesso parere, ben vengano accordi tra i due partiti.

Deputati e senatori dovranno alla fine comprendere come i litigi siano sgraditi alla gente che li ha eletti, e che li sta mantenendo.

Nota.

Si fa un gran dire che Mr Trump sarebbe impopolare.

Si fa sommessamente notare come Mrs Nancy Pelosi, leader della minoranza democratica al Congresso, più che un tasso di gradimento sembrerebbe avere un tasso di esecrabilità.

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__003


Fox News. 2017-09-21. 71% of Americans Support Trump’s Deal With Dems to Keep Gov’t Open, Fund Hurricane Relief, Poll Finds

More than 70 percent of Americans support President Donald Trump’s deal with Democratic leaders to provide hurricane relief and keep the government open for 90 days, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Trump was criticized by some of his fellow Republicans for reaching across the aisle and working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to raise the debt limit, which kept the government open and provided relief for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

71 percent of those surveyed by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, however, approved of Trump agreeing with Schumer and Pelosi on the legislation. Only eight percent disapproved, while 20 percent had no opinion and one percent were not sure.

Trump’s overall job approval rating in the poll is 43 percent, which is up three points since August. 83 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats approve of Trump’s performance.

“There’s a sense out there that people are so dug in in Washington, they’re oblivious to the fact the average American says we’re not getting anything done, we’re going to have to compromise,” Brian Kilmeade said on “Fox & Friends.” “And I think the president was the first to realize that. And now the poll numbers reflect that.”

He noted that a recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 60 percent of Republicans prefer lawmakers who are willing to work with Democrats and compromise.

Watch more above.


YouGov. 2017-09-21. Americans prefer compromise to inaction in Congress

55% of Americans want President Trump to make a deal with Democrats over “Dreamers”

Americans today say compromise across party lines is a good thing, especially now – a time when the public gives Congress only a 10% approval rating and few see a lot being accomplished by legislators. In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, even Republicans think it would be fine if President Trump were to reach across the aisle and work with Congressional Democrats on a host of critical issues before Congress.

Their interest in compromise doesn’t mean that Republicans agree with the Democrats on these issues. They overwhelmingly favor GOP positions on immigration and health care reform. But the poll findings underscore the lowered expectations for this Congress. Almost half of the public no longer thinks Congress will repeal Obamacare. Most don’t think there will be funding for a border wall, while a plurality thinks there won’t be comprehensive immigration reform and barely half expect Congress will even pass a budget.

Republicans expect tax reform to pass (55% to 32%) and Obamacare repeal as well, though by a narrow margin (48% to 43%). But they too are skeptical about the prospects for passing funding for a border wall and comprehensive immigration reform.

The first indication of the President’s interest in compromising with Democrats came earlier this month when he agreed with the House and Senate Minority Leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, to increase the debt limit and to provide aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey. Last week, there were conflicting reports about whether or not there had been another compromise, this time about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program established through an executive order signed by former President Barack Obama. The public approves of an attempt at compromise on this issue.

Republicans generally agree. So do those who voted for President Trump, although they are more closely divided. 45% approve of the President working with Democrats on this issue; 39% do not. Like the public overall, they think protection for “dreamers” will happen.

The GOP willingness for compromise is relatively new. Throughout the Obama Administration, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to say they preferred to have a Representative in Congress who stuck to principles at all costs, even at the risk of limiting accomplishments. In a 2011 poll, Republicans opposed having a Congressman who would be willing to compromise by nearly two to one. In this week’s poll, 60% of Republicans prefer a representative who is willing to compromise.

However, Republicans and Democrats may have different goals for DACA. Two in three Republicans approve of the President’s decision to end the program. When it comes to the program itself, members of the President’s party are divided: 39% support it, 45% do not.

There is also a significant amount of distrust of both sides. Majorities say they trust Democrats in Congress – and Donald Trump “not much” or “not at all” – when it comes to negotiating an agreement for the Dreamers.

More than two-thirds of Republicans distrust the Democrats in Congress on this issue; more than two-thirds of Democrats distrust the President. And the public is not quite sure of how much their leaders care about the “dreamers,” especially the President – most think he cares little or nothing about the needs and problems of the “dreamers.” This contrasts with the two-thirds of Americans – and a majority of Republicans – who say they care about the “dreamers.”

Increased interest in compromise may also be due to the fact that the Democratic Congressional leaders are more popular with the public and within their own parties than the Republican Congressional leadership is within theirs. The Democratic leadership even has gained support in recent weeks. While more than a third of the public disapproves of the way Schumer is handling his job as Senate Minority Leader, his 31% approval rating this week is the highest ever for him since he took office. 52% of Democrats approve. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has just a 28% approval rating, but 56% of Democrats approve of her performance.

Speaker Paul Ryan fares worse both with the public and with members of his own party. Only 43% of Republicans approve of the way he is doing his job, matching his low ratings after the failure of Obamacare repeal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scores even worse. His 30% approval rating among Republicans is his lowest all year.

Pubblicato in: Bergoglio, Putin, Russia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Bergoglio, Putin e Trump hanno celebrato il Rosh Hashanah.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-24.

Candelabro Ebraico rosh-hashana

«Rosh haShana (in ebraico ראש השנה, letteralmente capo dell’anno) è il capodanno religioso, uno dei tre previsti nel calendario ebraico.

Rosh haShana è il capodanno cui fanno riferimento i contratti legali, per la cura degli animali e per il popolo ebraico. La Mishnah indica in questo capodanno quello in base al quale calcolare la progressione degli anni e quindi anche per il calcolo dell’anno sabbatico e del giubileo.

Nella Torah vi si fa riferimento definendolo “il giorno del suono dello Shofar” (Yom Terua, Levitico 23:24). La letteratura rabbinica e la liturgia descrivono Rosh haShana come il “Giorno del giudizio” (Yom ha-Din) ed il “Giorno del ricordo” (Yom ha-Zikkaron).

Nei midrashim si racconta di Dio che si siede sul trono, di fronte a lui i libri che raccolgono la storia dell’umanità (non solo del popolo ebraico). Ogni singola persona viene presa in esame per decidere se meriti il perdono o meno.

La decisione, però, verrà ratificata solo in occasione di Yom Kippur. È per questo che i 10 giorni che separano queste due festività sono chiamate i 10 giorni penitenziali. In questi 10 giorni è dovere di ogni ebreo compiere un’analisi del proprio anno ed individuare tutte le trasgressioni compiute nei confronti dei precetti ebraici. Ma l’uomo è rispettoso anche verso il proprio prossimo. Ancora più importante, allora, è l’analisi dei torti che si sono fatti nei confronti dei propri conoscenti. Una volta riconosciuto con sé stessi di aver agito in maniera scorretta, occorre chiedere il perdono del danneggiato. Quest’ultimo ha il dovere di offrire il proprio perdono. Solo in casi particolari ha la facoltà di negarlo. È con l’anima del penitente che si affronta lo Yom Kippur.» [Fonte]

*

«Il capodanno ebraico si chiama Rosh Ha-Shanah (o Rosh Hashanà), che segna l’inizio dell’anno civile e cade il primo di Tishrì. Per completezza, aggiungiamo che nella Torà Nissàn è considerato il primo mese, in quanto gli Ebrei, in questo periodo, uscirono dalla schiavitù d’Egitto, diventando un vero popolo. Il primo di Nissàn è quindi chiamato Rosh Hashanà lamelakhìm velaregalìm (per i re e per le feste) ed è considerato il capodanno religioso.» [Comunità Ebraica di Roma]

* * * * * * *

Bene.

In tutto il mondo solo tre capi di stato si sono ricordati di celebrarlo assieme agli Ebrei, ma tra questi non c’erano né Mr Macron né Mrs Merkel, le nazione dei quali ben avrebbero avuto motivi di deferenza almeno formale.

*

SS Papa Franciscus I.

««Nel nostro cammino comune, grazie alla benevolenza dell’Altissimo, stiamo attraversando un fecondo momento di dialogo. Va in questo senso il documento Fra Gerusalemme e Roma che avete elaborato e che oggi ricevo dalle vostre mani. È un testo che tributa particolari riconoscimenti alla Dichiarazione conciliare Nostra Aetate, che nel suo quarto capitolo costituisce per noi la “magna charta” del dialogo col mondo ebraico: infatti la sua progressiva attuazione ha permesso ai nostri rapporti di diventare sempre più amichevoli e fraterni». Lo ha detto Papa Bergoglio ricevendo in Vaticano lo scorso 31 agosto una rappresentanza della Conferenza dei Rabbini Europei, guidata dal rabbino capo di Mosca Pinchas Goldschmidt, insieme ai rappresentanti del Consiglio Rabbinico d’America e della Commissione del Gran Rabbinato d’Israele. Fra i presenti anche Riccardo Di Segni, rabbino capo di Roma.» [Fonte]

*

Il Presidente Putin.

«Vladimir Putin met with Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar and President of the Federation of Jewish Communities Alexander Boroda. The President extended greetings to all Jews of Russia on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. …. Great and very large, multi-ethnic and multi-religious. We always have what to celebrate. Today we are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. I wish you and all the Jews of Russia a happy New Year. Tomorrow evening, the 21st, Muslims will start celebrating their New Year, although the prophet told them to reserve the biggest celebrations for other holidays. Then we Christians will celebrate our New Year, and in Russia this is done twice – according to the new and old calendar. On February 16 the Buddhists will have their New Year. So we have holidays to celebrate all year round.

But today we are celebrating the Jewish New Year. I would like to extend my very best wishes to you once again. I wish all the Jews of Russia prosperity, happiness and good fortune. I hope everything is well in your community.»

*

Il Presidente Trump.

«To the many leaders, Rabbis, and Jewish friends who are on the line, I am delighted to speak with you and to wish you Shana Tova, a sweet New Year.

I send the Jewish community my warmest wishes as we approach the High Holy Days.

The Jewish tradition of making time and taking time each year to rededicate your lives to the sacred values you hold dear not only improves yourselves but strengthens our nation and inspires us all.

As we mark the beginning of the year 5,778 in the Jewish calendar, I want to express my deep admiration for the Jewish people. Throughout the centuries, the Jewish people have endured unthinkable persecution.

I know with us today on the call are several Holocaust survivors. We are honored beyond words by your presence. You have borne witness to evil beyond human comprehension, and your perseverance is a lasting inspiration to us all. By telling your stories, you help us to confront evil in our world and we are forever grateful.

I am proud to stand with the Jewish people and with our cherished friend and ally, the State of Israel.»

* * * * * * *

Tre personalità profondamente differenti tra di loro, ma tutte e tre altrettanto profondamente rispettose dei sentimenti religiosi dei popoli che rappresentano.

Questo è un tratto che permette di distinguere gli uomini grandi, ancorché non condivisi, da quelli piccoli piccoli, insignificanti, e proprio perché insignificanti tronfi come batraci.


Kremlin. The President of Russia. 2017-09-20. Meeting with Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar and President of the Federation of Jewish Communities Alexander Boroda

Vladimir Putin met with Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar and President of the Federation of Jewish Communities Alexander Boroda. The President extended greetings to all Jews of Russia on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

*

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: It is so good that we have such a large country

Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar: A great country.

Vladimir Putin: Great and very large, multi-ethnic and multi-religious. We always have what to celebrate. Today we are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. I wish you and all the Jews of Russia a happy New Year. Tomorrow evening, the 21st, Muslims will start celebrating their New Year, although the prophet told them to reserve the biggest celebrations for other holidays. Then we Christians will celebrate our New Year, and in Russia this is done twice – according to the new and old calendar. On February 16 the Buddhists will have their New Year. So we have holidays to celebrate all year round.

But today we are celebrating the Jewish New Year. I would like to extend my very best wishes to you once again. I wish all the Jews of Russia prosperity, happiness and good fortune. I hope everything is well in your community. I know that religious life is actively developing and you have things to discuss with people and new sites – both secular and religious – to show them. This is something you and we always pay attention to. I know that you always pay much attention to this. I am glad to see that you are in regular dialogue with the secular authorities and, importantly, at all levels.

Berel Lazar: Thank you so much! Unlike other new years, we celebrate ours exactly on the day when God created the first man in our tradition. This is not such a merry holiday as in other religions. Ours is more solemn. People pray and reflect on what has been done and how to live better.

One of the main lessons is that God created a single man. The Talmud explains that the idea was to teach us all that the life of one person contains the whole world. He who saves the life of one person saves the entire world, as it were. So, during Rosh Hashanah, on these days, we will recall the exploits of those who saved our people – soldiers and officers who gave their lives to save others. On a related note, I would like to thank Russia for doing everything it can to preserve historical truth.

And special thanks to you for posthumously decorating a man in the Kremlin when we were there recently, a man of Jewish extraction named Alexander Pechersky. His leadership of the uprising in Sobibor has always been very important for us. I think that now, thanks to you, all Russian people know about this and I am very grateful to you for that. We appreciate that the memory of the war is sacred for every citizen in Russia today.

I thought about this today because I wanted to ask a question on behalf of the entire Jewish community about Russia’s participation in renovating the museum on the site of the Sobibor concentration camp. Russian soldiers played the leading role in liberating Europe from the Nazis and sustained the biggest losses during the war. We think the attempts to exclude Russia from this project are immoral and incomprehensible.

When talking about the war, the main thing is to forget all about these political issues. I do not even know what this is about, but certainly not justice. What we are witnessing today is some kind of a game being played with a sacred matter like war. We will by all means raise this issue with our colleagues, leaders of international and other Jewish organisations. We will do everything we can to bring this matter to a fitting resolution.

Russia should by all means take part in this project as well as in other war-related projects. The feat of soldiers remains sacred for us, and exploiting it or playing games with it is unacceptable. So, thank you very much once again. We fully support Russia’s position on this issue.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for framing the issue in this way and for your position, too. It is not new to me, your attitude to this issue. But it is important for people in our country to know that the leaders of the Jewish community share our official view on truth and justice with regard to all events of World War II.

It is very important for us to be together on these extremely important issues, and we should look to the future. But our views should be based on the solid foundation of understanding where hateful ideas of exterminating whole nations, millions of people, can lead.

And we must do everything to prevent this from happening in the future. This is why we will do all we can to avoid any politicisation of such issues, and we will certainly strive for an unbiased approach and truth, which is the only basis for a fair society and fair relations in the world.

I am hoping that your words will be heard by our partners, our colleagues around world. I am referring to this case as well. And the man you mentioned was certainly a hero, a very brave man. It is owing to such people who displayed such qualities, people of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, that we managed to win this horrible war.

But nonetheless today is the New Year. And I know about the traditions of the Jewish people and understand them. This is still a new stage. The New Year is the New Year, and I once again wish you a happy holiday.

Berel Lazar: Thank you, Mr President!


The Times of Israel. 2017-09-20. Full text of President Trump’s Rosh Hashanah call to Jewish leaders

President says he is ‘proud to stand with the Jewish people,’ condemns anti-Semitism, stresses ‘I love Israel,’ and hopes peace ‘actually could happen’.

*

Full White House text of remarks by President Donald Trump and Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner in a call to Jewish leaders, September 15, 2017:

KUSHNER: Welcome, everybody, and thank you for joining us here today. This is the most special time of the year for the Jewish people. This Wednesday evening begins Rosh Hashanah, the first of 10 days of repentance, that concludes with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Since January 20, I have had the great honor of serving in President Trump’s administration. Anyone that knows the President understands that he takes great pride in having a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren. His love and respect for the Jewish people extends way beyond his family, and into the heart of Jewish American communities.

Under the President’s leadership, America’s relationship with the State of Israel has never been stronger, and our country’s commitment to Israel’s security has never been greater.

It is my great honor to introduce the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, and thank you for joining this call.

To the many leaders, Rabbis, and Jewish friends who are on the line, I am delighted to speak with you and to wish you Shana Tova, a sweet New Year.

I send the Jewish community my warmest wishes as we approach the High Holy Days.

The Jewish tradition of making time and taking time each year to rededicate your lives to the sacred values you hold dear not only improves yourselves but strengthens our nation and inspires us all.

As we mark the beginning of the year 5,778 in the Jewish calendar, I want to express my deep admiration for the Jewish people. Throughout the centuries, the Jewish people have endured unthinkable persecution.

I know with us today on the call are several Holocaust survivors. We are honored beyond words by your presence. You have borne witness to evil beyond human comprehension, and your perseverance is a lasting inspiration to us all. By telling your stories, you help us to confront evil in our world and we are forever grateful.

I am proud to stand with the Jewish people and with our cherished friend and ally, the State of Israel. The Jewish State is a symbol of resilience in the face of oppression — it has persevered in the face of hostility, championed democracy in the face of violence, and succeeded in the face of very, very tall odds. The United States will always support Israel not only because of the vital security partnership between our two nations, but because of the shared values between our two peoples. And I can tell you on a personal basis, and I just left Israel recently, I love Israel.

That is why my administration has successfully pressured the United Nations to withdraw the unfair and biased report against Israel — that was a horrible thing that they did — and to instead focus on real threats to our security, such as Iran, Hezbollah, and ISIS.

This next New Year also offers a new opportunity to seek peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and I am very hopeful that we will see significant progress before the end of the year. Ambassador David Friedman, Jared, Jason [Greenblatt], and the rest of my team are working very hard to achieve a peace agreement. I think it’s something that actually could happen.

I am grateful for the history, culture, and values the Jewish people have given to civilization. We forcefully condemn those who seek to incite anti-Semitism, or to spread any form of slander and hate — and I will ensure we protect Jewish communities, and all communities, that face threats to their safety.

I want to thank each of you for the ways in which you contribute to our nation. America is stronger because of the many Jewish Americans who bring such life, hope, and resilience to our nation.

Melania and I wish everyone a sweet, healthy, and peaceful New Year. Thank you very much.