Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Texas. Elezioni suppletive senato. Vittoria repubblicana dopo 139 anni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-20.

Texas 001

Si sono svolte ieri le elezioni suppletive senato nel diciannovesimo distretto, vinte con il 52.99% dei consensi dal sen. Pete Flores, repubblicano.

Premettiamo immediatamente come i risultati di elezioni in un singolo collegio, per di più statale, non federale, dipendano molto dalle condizioni locali e dalla personalità dei candidati. Il tentativo di generalizzare a tutti gli Stati Uniti sarebbe destituito di buon senso.

Tuttavia questo caso ha una particolarità degna di nota.


Huge Upset for GOP in Texas: State Senate Seat Flips Red for First Time in 139 Years

«In a major upset Tuesday night, voters elected a conservative political newcomer to the Texas Senate, flipping a Democratic district red for the first time in 139 years.

Retired game warden Pete Flores defeated former state and U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego in the runoff election for the Senate District 19 seat in San Antonio, further increasing the Republicans’ supermajority in the chamber ahead of the November elections. Flores will replace Democrat state Sen. Carlos Uresti, who was forced to step down in June after being sentenced to 12 years in prison on federal fraud and money laundering charges.

This seat wasn’t supposed to be competitive. It went 54-42 for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and 55-44 for Barack Obama in 2012.»

* * *


How Texas Democrats lost a state Senate seat amid talk of a blue wave

«Republican Pete Flores defeated Democrat Pete Gallego on Tuesday in a state Senate district that Hillary Clinton won by 12 points, prompting Democratic soul-searching less than two months before the midterms.

Republican Pete Flores’ upset victory in a Democratic-friendly Texas Senate district Tuesday night has spurred GOP jubilation and Democratic soul-searching with less than two months until the November elections.

“All this talk about a ‘blue wave’? Well, the tide is out,” Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proclaimed at Flores’ election night party in San Antonio.

Flores beat Democrat Pete Gallego, a former U.S. representative, by 6 percentage points in the special election runoff for Senate District 19, where state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, resigned earlier this year after 11 felony convictions. The win made Flores the first Hispanic Republican in the Texas Senate and grew the GOP majority there to 21 members, a key addition as the caucus heads toward November looking to retain its supermajority.

Democrats moved quickly Tuesday night to blame Gov. Greg Abbott for scheduling the special election at a time when turnout was expected to be low and would favor his party. But they were nonetheless demoralized Wednesday, trying to figure out how they let a valuable seat flip in a district where Uresti repeatedly won re-election by double digits and that Hillary Clinton carried by 12 in 2016.»

* * * * * * *

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

Ripetiamo esclusivamente per chiarezza.

Nessuna intenzione di generalizzare, ma i repubblicani sono riusciti a scalzare da questo distretto i democratici, che da 139 anni vi facevano eleggere un loro aderente. Un distretto ove Mrs Clinton aveva vinto nel 2016 54 – 42.

Alla fine dei conti, ciò che importa sono i risultati delle urne.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Demografia, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

California. 12% della popolazione e 33% sotto soglia povertà.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-19.

California 001

La California è uno stato dalle grandi contraddizioni.

Se è vero che in California risiedono numerosi miliardari, se è vero che posti come Hollywood rigurgitino di ricchezza, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare che pur avendo il 12% della popolazione della federazione ha il 33% delle persone che vivono sotto la soglia della povertà. Il 60% dei residenti è senza lavoro stabile.

Basta solo lasciare il centro delle metropoli e visitare i suburbi: lì la povertà la si vede e la si tocca con mano.

* * *

«According to the United States Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, California has the highest poverty rate in the country»

*

«One in five people in California are living in poverty and the state’s residents account for 33% of all those on welfare in the United States, despite the state only being 12% of the country’s population»

*

«The state spent $958 billion on welfare programs between 1992-2015»

*

«According to the study, 60% of Californians are jobless and living in poverty.»

*

«One contributing factor to their high poverty levels is their lack of affordable housing. Housing in California has become increasingly out of reach for the middle class due to building regulations and space constraints. This has caused housing to consume far more of the average residents income than in other parts of the country, leaving them with less money for food, transportation, healthcare and other services»

* * * * * * * *

Tutto ha una spiegazione logica.

Lo stato della California è un ‘santuario‘ dell’immigrazione illegale: persone che non parlano la lingua, a basso tasso di istruzione, di quasi impossibile inserimento nel ciclo produttivo sono attivamente richiamate e poi lasciate in tale situazione precaria.

Il nodo consiste nel fatto che, almeno fino alla riforma varata dal Presidente Trump e che sta trovando attuazione nei tempi tecnici necessari, la legge dava la possibilità di mettere in detrazione dalla tasse federali le tasse pagate agli stati.

Lo stato della California aveva così imposto tasse statali molto elevate, che però non gravavano sui cittadini californiani bensì erano ripartite su tutti i cittadini della federazione. Le tasse statali erano del tutto trasparenti per i cittadini californiani.

Grazie a questa alchimia fiscale il budget della California permetteva di spendere, inter alias, 42 miliardi di dollari per interventi assistenziali, per mantenere, sia pure sobriamente, la popolazione sotto la soglia della povertà.

La sussistenza di costoro dipendeva, dipende, strettamente dall’elargizione governativa, diventando di fatto clientes del partito al governo, ossia dei liberal democratici.

Nessuno dovrebbe quindi stupirsi del perché la California sia un feudo liberal particolarmente roccioso.


CDP. 2018-09-12. $958 Billion Welfare, California Has Highest Poverty Rate In America As 60 Percent Baffles Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 12th district who advocates for policies like mass immigration which contribute to the states crippling poverty rate.

*

According to the United States Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, California has the highest poverty rate in the country. One in five people in California are living in poverty and the state’s residents account for 33% of all those on welfare in the United States, despite the state only being 12% of the country’s population. The state spent $958 billion on welfare programs between 1992-2015. According to the study, 60% of Californians are jobless and living in poverty.

California is a sanctuary state and is often championing movements which find ways to grant protections and entitlements to immigrants at the expense of Americans. While an astronomical 30% of Americans in California are receiving means-tested welfare, this pales in comparison to the 55% rate of use by immigrant families consuming this type of welfare. The state is handing over tons of cash to foreign nationals at the expense of Americans.

One contributing factor to their high poverty levels is their lack of affordable housing. Housing in California has become increasingly out of reach for the middle class due to building regulations and space constraints. This has caused housing to consume far more of the average residents income than in other parts of the country, leaving them with less money for food, transportation, healthcare and other services.

The state simply does not have enough jobs to support the hordes of immigrants they have taken in. The minority of the population who do hold jobs in California are often competing with illegals for work and having their wages suppressed by the mass migration of people from the third world who are willing to work much less an American whom expects a living wage be paid for their labor.

Democrats in California have consistently rejected forcing work requirements on the able-bodied individuals who receive welfare. Forcing those who can work to look for a job and/or maintain employment before receiving benefits is a policy unpalatable for the democrats who control the state.  Americans in California are mostly jobless and the ones who can find work are actually having their money taken through the highest state income tax in the union to support immigrants, the majority of which are on welfare.

The current system in place in California is unsustainable, according to a memorandum sent to Senator Boxer from Legislative Director Sean Moore and Senior Economic Advisor Marcus Stanley, “…the estimate that in 2009 California received $1.45 in Federal expenditures for each dollar paid in taxes is conservative and likely to be an underestimate.” However, the most recent Legislative analysis concluded that in 2015 the state received $0.99 for every dollar contributed in federal taxes, meaning the state was able to reign in some of its spending or mitigate it through higher state taxes.

Over the past two decades the state has increased taxes on its resident, on both their income and their purchases, i.e. gasoline. The state has also been continuously flooded with poor economic migrants, who are using up a huge portion of the available assistance paid for by and initially implemented to help Americans. California lost more Americans, who are statistically net contributors to overall tax revenue, in a mass exodus in 2017 than any other state, only to be replaced by foreign nationals who are a statistical net drain on their tax revenue, and a burden to their schools, roads and infrastructure.

California under Democratic rule has seen a rapid decline in both its ability to sustain itself and the quality of life for most of their residents. Their population of poverty stricken is vastly disproportionate to their overall population. Policies which continue to flood the state with parasitic foreign nationals while continuing to raise taxes on the contributing population will only push more people out of the state, evaporating their tax base.

The poverty-stricken California is a sad condition for the state to be in, and if the state is able to lobby the government to provide Amnesty for DACA recipients, something they claim to want, the decline will only accelerate. The Congressional Budget Office conducted a study and found about one in four DACA recipients to be functionally illiterate in English.

Granting hordes of unskilled and illiterate foreign nationals will allow them to apply for more benefits than they are currently consuming wildly out of proportion, hindering the states ability to turn around this disturbing trend.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Stati Uniti, Trump

Fed Atlanta. Pil T3 proiettato al 4.4%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-16.

FED 001

La Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta ha rilasciato il Report «GDP Now».

The growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) is a key indicator of economic activity, but the official estimate is released with a delay. Our GDPNow forecasting model provides a “nowcast” of the official estimate prior to its release by estimating GDP growth using a methodology similar to the one used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

GDPNow is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed. Rather, it is best viewed as a running estimate of real GDP growth based on available data for the current measured quarter. There are no subjective adjustments made to GDPNow—the estimate is based solely on the mathematical results of the model.

Recent forecasts for the GDPNow model are available here. More extensive numerical details—including underlying source data, forecasts, and model parameters—are available as a separate spreadsheet. You can also view an archive of recent commentaries from GDPNow estimates.

Latest forecast: 4.4 percent — September 14, 2018

The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2018 is 4.4 percent on September 14, up from 3.8 percent on September 11. The nowcast of third-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth increased from 3.0 percent to 3.7 percent after this morning’s retail sales report from the U.S. Census Bureau and this morning’s industrial production release from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

* * * * * * *

Il dato ha ben pochi commenti.

Essendo la prospezione del 14 settembre, sembrerebbe essere verosimile che nei restanti 14 giorni questa stima non debba variare di molto, forse, qualche decimo di punto percentuale.

Gran bel risultato dell’Amministrazione Trump, che si appresta ad affrontare le elezioni di midterm avendo in mano risultati concreti.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Suprema Corte. 5 motivi del terrore dei liberal democratici. – New Stateman.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-16.

Campidoglio 001

Ogni accadimento può essere valutato e percepito da differenti punti di vista.

Se la battaglia di Adrianopoli fu una débâcle per l’Impero Romano, preannunciandone la rovinosa caduta, per i Goti invece fu un trionfo di rara grandezza, che consentì loro di governare per secoli.

Se la battaglia di Hastings sancì l’era normanna in Inghilterra, per i britannici segnò l’inizio di secoli di schiavitù, de iure e de facto.

Se Midway fu un trionfo per la marina americana e per gli Stati Uniti, essa fu di converso l’evento che sancì che il Giappone aveva perso la guerra.

*

Di questi giorni stiamo assistendo allo scontro finale tra repubblicani e democratici. È uno scontro per la vita o per la morte: uno dei due contendenti è destinato a morire.

Il campo di battaglia è il Senato degli Stati Uniti, chiamato secondo Costituzione a confermare la nomina fatta dal Presidente Trump di Sua Giustizia Brett Kavanaugh. Entro questa settimna dovrebbero svolgersi le votazioni.

Nicky Woolf ha sintetizzato in un breve articolo i cinque motivi che rendono questa scelta epocale: ovviamente valuta la situazione dal punto di vista liberal democratico.

«Here are a few of the things a conservative majority on America’s highest court might mean:

1) The end of a woman’s right to choose

2) The end of the possibility of easy de-Trumpification

3) The end of hope to contain even some of the damage from Trump’s agenda

4) The end of the Supreme Court’s reliability to fairly arbitrate a possible impeachment or 25th Amendment proceeding.

5) The end of the Supreme Court as a check on executive powers.»

* * * * * * *

Dal suo punto di vista Mr Woolf ha ragione.

Trascura però di dire un particolare di non poco conto. Se alle presidenziali del 2016 Mrs Hillary Clinton avesse vinto al posto di Mr Trump, ora la Suprema Corte sarebbe governata dai liberal democratici. In quella tornata elettorale i democratici hanno fatto una lunga serie di severi errori di valutazione, primo tra tutti la nomination di Mrs Hillary Clinton. Errori poi proseguiti con i tentativi di demonizzazione di Mr Trump. Bene. Pagheranno davvero salato i loro comportamenti.

Con le nomine di Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti resterà a maggioranza repubblicana per almeno tre decenni.

I liberal democratici sanno più che bene che saranno trattati per come hanno trattato: saranno annientati come forza politica. Ecco perché sono terrorizzati: saranno trattati che i Goti trattarono i Romani dopo Adrianopoli, e sono in molti a sperare che il trattamento sia ben più duro.


New Stateman. 2018-09-11. Five terrifying ways Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation could impact the US.

Trump’s second Supreme Court pick seems set for Senate confirmation. Here’s what that could mean.

*

After four days of intense hearings, Republicans are pushing ahead with their plan to ram the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, through the Senate. They’re doing this despite – or more likely because of – the upcoming midterm elections, which could threaten their razor-thin majority in the Senate.

The hypocrisy involved is nothing short of breath-taking. This is the same group of Senate Republicans who, under the guise of insisting that the voice of the American people be heard in the 2016 election, refused to even meet with Merrick Garland, the overwhelmingly qualified judge Barack Obama nominated to replace Antonin Scalia on the court.

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide,” was what the Republican senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said in March 2016.

If it wasn’t obvious that he was playing politics then – which it entirely was – then it’s abundantly so now. It is now September, much closer to another election and thus another opportunity for the American people to “have their say”, but now that a Republican is in the White House and is happy to outsource his judicial picks to the right-wing Federalist Society, McConnell and the GOP are singing from an entirely different hymn sheet.

The speed with which Republicans are acting in order to get Kavanaugh on the court before they risk losing their majority in November, despite it being entirely and visibly contradictory to their previous position when it was a Democrat in the White House doing the nomination, is pretty much unsurprising at this point. The Republicans are no longer interested in even the appearance of playing by the rules of democracy.

Certainly, the fact that a trove of documents dumped on Senate Democrats just the night before the hearings began contain possible evidence that Kavanaugh had perjured himself didn’t affect the Republicans one bit.

The stakes could not be higher. Kavanaugh is set to replace justice Anthony Kennedy, who has long been the swing vote on the Court, meaning that the balance of American jurisprudence could dramatically shift with his appointment.

Here are a few of the things a conservative majority on America’s highest court might mean:

1) The end of a woman’s right to choose

Abortion in the US was made legal by a 1973 Supreme Court decision in a famous case called Roe vs Wade, which found that state laws criminalising access to abortions were unconstitutional. A conservative court could reverse that.

After meeting with Kavanaugh, Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine who is thought of as one of two possible dissenting votes that might sink the confirmation over this issue (she has previously said that she would vote against a nominee who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade), said that she was satisfied with his position on the subject. But some of his answers to questions in his hearing last week throw serious doubt on that.

Collins, as well as Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, has come under intense pressure from women’s rights groups to break with the GOP and block Kavanaugh’s nomination; activists even sent her 3,000 coat-hangers during the hearing as a symbol of the back-alley abortions that used to take place before Roe vs Wade. An August 21 poll by Public Policy Polling found that voting to confirm Kavanaugh could hit Collins support at home by as much as 16 points in the next election.

2) The end of the possibility of easy de-Trumpification

Because Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, a conservative majority on the court could have ramifications that far outlast the Trump administration itself. As columnist EJ Dionne noted in the Washington Post on Sunday, “if the Trump era produces a backlash so strong that a Democratic president and Congress pass breakthrough economic and social policies, conservatives will count on their court majority to block, dismantle or disable progressive initiatives.”

3) The end of hope to contain even some of the damage from Trump’s agenda

As FiveThirtyEight point out, Kennedy was hardly a staunch liberal: even before he announced his retirement, the Supreme Court had, with him as the deciding vote, saved Trump’s Muslim ban and upheld gerrymandering, and that was in this session alone. But he also wrote the majority opinion of the ruling which overturned the anti-gay Defence of Marriage Act, and has previously sided with the liberal justices on issues of marriage equality, abortion rights, and affirmative action. With another ideological conservative like Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court it is unlikely that judicial challenges to the Trump agenda will have much chance of succeeding.

4) The end of the Supreme Court’s reliability to fairly arbitrate a possible impeachment or 25th Amendment proceeding.

This is less likely, as impeachment itself is a purely legislative proceeding. Only the chief justice of the Supreme Court is involved, in as much as they act as the judge for the trial before the Senate, which would only happen following a successful series of votes to impeach in the House. But if in future, say if the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election shows evidence of collusion or other illegal behaviour on Trump’s part, it is possible that an effort to remove him using the 25th Amendment, which provides for situations where the president is unable to do the job, could fall to the Supreme Court for arbitration if Trump refuses to step down. More likely, and even more worrying, is:

5) The end of the Supreme Court as a check on executive powers.

During Watergate, President Nixon attempted to invoke executive privilege to avoid release of the tapes he had recorded of himself. Then, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to surrender the recordings. That it was unanimous makes it a pretty tough precedent to overrule, but norms are falling like flies these days, and an executive-friendly conservative majority on the court could rule in Trump’s favour if he tried to invoke similar privilege with regard to, for example, a subpoena to the president from the Mueller investigation. In fact, Kavanaugh has previously argued that US vs Nixon was wrongly decided. A cynic might even suspect that might be why he was so high up Trump’s list of picks in the first place.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

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

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-15.

Campidoglio 001

«Le elezioni di metà mandato o medio termine (dall’inglese Midterm Elections) si tengono, ogni quattro anni, ovvero due anni dopo le elezioni presidenziali, negli Stati Uniti e riguardano il Congresso, le assemblee elettive dei singoli Stati, e alcuni dei governatori dei singoli Stati. Non riguardano l’elezione del presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Tale tornata elettorale si tiene il primo martedì dopo il primo lunedì del mese di novembre degli anni pari e riguarda i 435 membri della Camera dei rappresentanti e un terzo dei 100 membri del Senato (alternativamente 33 o 34). Le elezioni di metà mandato si tengono a metà del mandato presidenziale (4 anni), e da ciò deriva la loro denominazione.

Le elezioni di metà mandato riguardano anche i governatori di trentasei dei cinquanta Stati membri degli Stati Uniti: trentaquattro Stati infatti eleggono il loro governatore per un mandato quadriennale durante le elezioni midterm, mentre il Vermont ed il New Hampshire eleggono i propri governatori per un mandato biennale in concomitanza, quindi, una volta con le elezioni presidenziali, e una volta con le midterm elections. Vengono eletti inoltre in questa occasione i membri delle assemblee legislative degli Stati membri e degli organi di contea per un mandato di due anni.» [Fonte]

*

Storicamente, è difficile che il partito del presidente in carica riesca a conservare la maggioranza di entrambe le camere: ciò è successo solo quattro volte.

Se nessuno si stupisce che i liberal democratici contino molto su questo retaggio storico, sarebbe anche da notarsi come essi preconizzino una “blue wave”, una marea blu, ossia democratica. I media liberal parlano tranquillamente di cappotto: preconizzano maggioranza assoluta in senato ed al congresso, e la conquista di quasi tutti i posti di governatore messi in palio.

Se è del tutto ragionevole che i comandanti cerchino di inebriare le proprie truppe prima del combattimento, vi sarebbero anche motivi ragionevoli per ipotizzare non una marea blu, ma soltanto un modesto reflusso di voti.

«Democrats would need to pick up 23 Republican seats to take over the House and two to capture the Senate. There are 20 to 25 House seats and seven or eight Senate seats that remain toss-ups»

*

«Over more than half a century, there have only been two midterm elections where a post-Labor Day event changed the dynamics of the overall race»

* * * * * * * *

Se l’attenzione si spostasse dai proclami elettorali e mediatici ai sondaggi eseguiti da agenzie abbastanza non politicizzate il quadro sembrerebbe essere alquanto differente.

La Ubs, da sempre molto attenta alla situazione politica americana, preconizza

«I Democratici dovrebbero soffiare agli avversari politici dai 9 ai 13 seggi alla Camera»

Incerto il risultato al senato, che però Mr Trump potrebbe conservare. Senza grossolane sorprese le elezioni dei governatori.

A favore del Presidente Trump potrebbe giocare l’ottima congiuntura economica:

Usa. Federal Reserve Atlanta. Pil T3 proiettato al 4.6%.

* * * * * * *

A nostro sommesso avviso, le previsione fatte dall’Ubs sembrerebbero essere ragionevoli.

Da ultimo, ma non per ultimo, si tenga presente che, se i repubblicani mantenessero la maggioranza in senato, Mr Trump potrebbe portare a termine le nomine ancora pendenti nelle Corti federali circuitali, garantendo in questa maniera per svariati decenni un solido orientamento repubblicano in seno a tali alti consessi. Sarebbe già un risultato di tutto rispetto e, forse, quello che più temono i liberal democratici.


Bloomberg. 2018-09-09. It’s Too Late to Stop a Blue Wave, But Not for Trump to Try

The odds favor Democrats in the House and governors’ mansions. So expect October surprises.

*

A consensus is building in both U.S. political parties that Democrats are heavily favored to take control of the House of Representatives on Nov. 6 and to pick up half a dozen governors’ offices, while Republicans hang on to their slim Senate majority. But there’s a caveat: Politics is unpredictable with President Donald Trump in the White House.

It would be foolish to rule out the possibility that the prospect of Republican losses in the midterm election will provoke Trump to take some kind of dramatic executive action during the next eight weeks. If he does, it could work for his party or it could just as easily backfire.

Democrats would need to pick up 23 Republican seats to take over the House and two to capture the Senate. There are 20 to 25 House seats and seven or eight Senate seats that remain toss-ups. Any of them could be tipped by mistakes, embarrassing revelations or unusual developments like ones that took place last week when Michigan’s Republican governor refused to endorse his party’s candidate to succeed him, or when Florida’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate made a pedestrian choice of a running mate.

But the momentum building toward a Democratic wave, small or sizable, is unlikely to fade. “I’ve never seen a wave reverse or dissipate between midsummer and Election Day,” said Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report and a sage of U.S. elections. “They have just remained constant or gotten bigger, like 1994 and 2006.”

Over more than half a century, there have only been two midterm elections where a post-Labor Day event changed the dynamics of the overall race. In both cases, these involved weighty historical events and Republicans were marginally hurt. One was in 1974, when President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for crimes related to the Watergate scandal. The other was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

An international crisis is possible, especially if Trump seeks to create a distraction from his own scandals. Whether real or manufactured, Trump would be called upon to handle it with the same skill President John F. Kennedy displayed during the Cuban nuclear confrontation in the Cold War. That’s far-fetched.

The 2018 do-nothing Congress still has a month to go. House Republican leaders want to pass a few spending bills and get out by early October so endangered incumbents can campaign. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell will probably keep the Senate in session for most of October to inhibit Democratic incumbents from spending more time on the campaign trail and to force votes on federal judicial nominations.

For all the fury over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he’s expected to be confirmed on a mostly party-line vote, perhaps by Oct. 1, when the Supreme Court convenes. Politically, the fight probably is a wash or a slight energizer for Democrats.

These plans could be sidetracked if Trump threatens a government shutdown to try to force Congress to approve money for his wall on the southern border. The issue of a small pay raise for federal employees, which budget director Mick Mulvaney nixed, could get ensnared in this. Fearing the pay raise could cost them a half-dozen House seats, Republican leaders would like to pass a modified version but fear Trump won’t go along.

The president earlier threatened a shutdown, then last week seemed to retreat only to renew the threat yet again. As Stan Collender, a commentator on the federal budget, noted, “Nothing Trump says on any particular day should be treated as gospel.”

Trump retains the support of his most loyal fans, but his credibility among other Americans is eroding. The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, reported on Tuesday that the president has made 4,713 false or misleading statements since he took the oath of office in 2017; the summer months saw new highs in Trump lies.

Trump’s unpredictability is bound to be amplified in the coming weeks. He’s already lashed out wildly over revelations in a new book by Washington-watcher Bob Woodward and an anonymous New York Times op-ed column about White House dysfunction and efforts by staffers there to undermine their boss. Soon-to-be released books by the journalist Michael Lewis on chaos in important agencies and the communications scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson on Russian manipulation of the 2016 presidential election — not to mention continuing fallout from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible links between the Trump campaign and the election meddling — are likely to enrage this unstable president even more.

I remember the dark moods of White House aides during the Watergate scandal and after the exposure in 1998 of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. But these were mild compared to the gloom in the Trump White House, where hardly anyone trusts anyone else.

For the midterms, one slim hope for Republicans is that they tend to narrow their polling deficits right before an election. That’s often because Democratic voters aren’t motivated. This November, however, Democrats have the great motivator sitting in the White House.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Obama prosegue in California la campagna elettorale per midterm.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-10.

2018-09-10__Obama__001

Think Progress è una fedele creatura generata da Mr George Soros, per cui è fonte attendibile per quanto concerne gli avvenimenti dei liberal democratici.

Negli Stati Uniti usualmente i presidenti usciti di carica si astengono dall’intervenire nelle campagne elettorali. Tuttavia, in vista delle elezioni di midterm, Mr Obama è sceso decisamente in campo: queste saranno elezioni cruciali per il suo partito.

Significativamente, Mrs Hillary Clinton non si è fatta vedere, almeno per il momento.

«Anaheim, California — Former President Obama made his first campaign stop of the midterm elections in Orange County, California Saturday to stump for seven Democratic House candidates running in districts currently held by Republicans but that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

About 750 people attended the event at Anaheim Convention Center, where Obama delivered a short speech centered on unity and the “politics of hope.” And, after a story about getting kicked out of Disneyland when he was caught smoking in the Magic Kingdom after a concert as a teenager, Obama issued an impassioned critique of Trump and the state of American democracy and encouraged the crowd to back the candidates he came to support.»

* * *

Prendiamo atto che nella liberal e democratica California Mr Obama abbia parlato davanti ad un pubblico di settecentocinquanta persone, a sostegno di sette candidati democratici al Congresso: un po’ più di cento supporter per ogni candidato.

«If the Democrats best ticket (Obama) can only draw 750 in far-left California, the idea of a blue wave may be more like a pipe dream!»


The Gateway. 2018-09-09. The Thrill Is Gone: Only 750 Turn Out to See Former President Obama in Far-Left California.

This weekend, in an unprecedented move, former President Barack Obama went on the campaign trail to push the far-left Democrat agenda in the upcoming November elections.

But, it didn’t quite turn out like he expected.

Only 750 people showed up at his event in far left California!

Far left George Soros related Think Progress reported over the weekend about former President Obama’s event in Anaheim, California –

«ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA — Former President Obama made his first campaign stop of the midterm elections in Orange County, California Saturday to stump for seven Democratic House candidates running in districts currently held by Republicans but that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

About 750 people attended the event at Anaheim Convention Center, where Obama delivered a short speech centered on unity and the “politics of hope.” And, after a story about getting kicked out of Disneyland when he was caught smoking in the Magic Kingdom after a concert as a teenager, Obama issued an impassioned critique of Trump and the state of American democracy and encouraged the crowd to back the candidates he came to support.»

President Trump on the other hand continues to fill up collesiums around the US at his events.

 If the Democrats best ticket (Obama) can only draw 750 in far-left California, the idea of a blue wave may be more like a pipe dream!

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Kamala Harris. Senatrice democratica, arma segreta di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-08.

2018-09-08__Costituzione_001

«that book that you carry»

*

«the constitution, it is in the book that I carry»

*

Nessun altro commento. Mrs Kamala Harris è l’ultima arma segreta di Mr Trump: braccia sottratte alle miniere di salgemma.


Watch: Kamala Harris Calls Kavanaugh’s Pocket Constitution ‘That Book You Carry’

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) described a pocket-sized version of the U.S. Constitution belonging to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as “that book you carry,” on day four of the judge’s confirmation hearing.

Asking Judge Kavanaugh which unenumerated rights he would do away with, Harris said:

I’m going to ask you about unenumerated rights. You gave a speech praising former Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Rhodes, there’s been much discussion about that, and you wrote, quote, celebrating his success, that ‘success in stemming the general tide of free-wheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights,’ that is what you said in celebration of Justice Rehnquist. So ‘unenumerated rights.’ is a phrase that lawyers use, but I want to make clear what we’re talking about. It means rights that are protected by the Constitution even if they’re not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They are not in that book that you carry.

Harris continued:

What we are talking about is the right to vote, that’s an unenumerated right, the right to have children. The right to have control over the upbringing of your children. The right to refuse medical care. The right to love the partner of your choice, the right to marry, and the right to have an abortion. Now, putting those unenumerated rights in the context of the statement that you made, which was to praise the stemming of the general tide of free-wheeling creation of unenumerated rights, which means you were, the interpretation there is you were praising the quest to end those unenumerated rights. My question to you is which of the rights that I just mentioned do you want to an end to or rollback?

*

Kavanaugh replied,

“Three points I believe, senator, first the constitution, it is in the book that I carry. The constitution protects unenumerated rights. That’s what the Supreme Court has said.”

«That’s what the Supreme Court has said»

E la sen. Harris dovrebbe giudicare se Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh sia o meno idoneo a diventare Giudice nella Suprema Corte?

Mr Trump starà godendo come un mandrillo.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Primarie di New York. La temperatura delle stanze è ‘sessista’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-06.

Femmina 009

Questa non è una barzelletta, e tanto meno è una fake news.

Il governatorato di New York è oberato da una montagna di debiti, così come la città di New York: sono sull’orlo della bancarotta, come accadde anni fa a Detroit.

Eppure nessuno ne parla: il dibattito politico alle primarie democratiche verte su tutt’altro.

«Ms Nixon has one chance to go head-to-head with Mr Cuomo, and her team fear she could be disadvantaged by freezing temperatures at the venue.»

*

«Governor Cuomo supposedly favours Arctic conditions when making public appearances. It’s sufficiently bad that the New York Times once headlined an article, “Going to an Event Featuring Cuomo? Take a Coat, or Maybe a Blanket”.

Keen to avoid the Big Freeze, Ms Nixon’s team emailed organisers to ask that the room be heated to 76F (24C) on Wednesday night.»

*

«Strategist Rebecca Katz wrote that working conditions are “notoriously sexist when it comes to room temperature, so we just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here”.»

*


“Miranda” di Sex and the City si candida alle primarie di New York

«L’attrice Cynthia Nixon è da tempo un’attivista dell’ala più progressista del partito democratico e si è battuta per i diritti della comunità Lgbt. Sfiderà l’attuale governatore Andrew Cuomo»

*

«Per guadagnarsi la candidatura dei democratici l’attrice dovrà battere l’attuale governatore dello Stato di New York, Andrew Cuomo. Impresa tutt’altro che semplice perché secondo il primo sondaggio, realizzato dal Siena College, Cuomo parte da un 66% delle preferenze, contro il 19% di Nixon, di cui si vociferava una candidatura da diversi mesi. L’attrice, pur non avendo mai ricoperto ruoli ufficiali, è da tempo un’attivista dell’ala più progressista del partito e combatte per i diritti della comunità Lgbt, di cui fa parte essendo dichiaratamente omosessuale. New York è uno Stato con una netta maggioranza democratica, motivo per il quale il vincitore delle primarie del 13 settembre avrà molte probabilità di diventare anche governatore.»

*


Per Andrew Cuomo il “nemico” è Trump? Per Cynthia Nixon è l’establishment

«Difficile dire chi dei due abbia prevalso. Si può affermare, però, che entrambi hanno mantenuto il proprio punto: per Cuomo, quello di mostrarsi, forte della sua esperienza, come unico argine alle politiche trumpiste; per Nixon, quello di proporsi come forte alternativa a una politica progressista “solo a livello retorico”, poco coraggiosa, torbida e prona agli interessi delle corporation»

*

«Qualche ora prima che l’unico dibattito tra il governatore attuale dello stato di New York Andrew Cuomo e la sua sfidante alle primarie democratiche Cynthia Nixon avesse inizio, i giornali americani si sono dilettati a raccontare il gustoso siparietto avvenuto (a distanza) tra i due, ribattezzato prontamente “pre-debate”, sulla temperatura dello studio televisivo che li avrebbe ospitati di lì a poco. Il governatore Cuomo – si sa – ama il freddo, e, secondo quanto pubblicato dal New York Times, lo staff della Nixon avrebbe scritto all’emittente WCBS-TV per assicurarsi che l’aria condizionata non rinfrescasse al di sotto dei 76 gradi Fahrenheit, 24 gradi Celsius, notando quanto le condizioni lavorative imposte normalmente siano, persino in tema di termometri, “sessiste”.»

*


Cuomo-Nixon debate: Can a room temperature really be sexist? [Bbc]

«The question may sound bizarre, but it’s taken off on social media ahead of a debate between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is seeking a third term, and Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon – his challenger for the Democratic nomination.

Ms Nixon has one chance to go head-to-head with Mr Cuomo, and her team fear she could be disadvantaged by freezing temperatures at the venue.

So is it just a diva demand, or part of a wider problem where women are left chilly in the workplace?

Here’s how the heated discussion got started…»

*

«When news of the request emerged, thermostat warriors lined up on both sides of the argument, with many agreeing that public spaces are “too cold” by women’s standards.»

*

«49% of Americans control 100% of the office thermostats. Don’t engage me unless you’re willing to argue at 79 degrees.»

*

«Some women disagreed, of course. Or as tweeter Katie Kearns put it: “Every woman in menopause just sweated all over you.”»

* * * * * * * *

Sulla temperatura delle stanze di lavoro è sorta una acerrima battaglia politica.

Per l’ala ortodossa dei liberal socialisti la temperatura dovrebbe essere almeno 79 F: solo così l’ambiente termico non danneggia le femmine e non è sessista.

Per queste persone il femminismo si esprime solo a quei livelli termini, queli che permettono il fiorire delle tendenze lgbt.

*

Resta il problema della menopausa e delle relative caldane.

Ma è cosa scientificamente assodata che le femministe non vanno in menopausa.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici, Stati Uniti

Kontrordine Kompagni!!!! Il Mit afferma che il nucleare è l’unica via per il futuro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-05.

Contrordine Compagni 001

«nuclear play vital role in climate solutions»



«L’Istituto di tecnologia del Massachusetts (in inglese: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT) è una delle più importanti università di ricerca del mondo con sede a Cambridge, nel Massachusetts. ….

Il MIT si è classificato in 1ª posizione assoluta nella annuale classifica delle migliori università del mondo 2012/2013 e del 2015/2016 di QS World University Rankings. Risulta primo nelle facoltà di chimica, ingegneria elettrica ed elettronica, ingegneria meccanica, fisica, informatica, ingegneria dei materiali e ingegneria chimica ….

Il MIT vanta 78 Premi Nobel, 29 nella fisica, 20 nell’economia, 15 nella chimica, 10 nella medicina e 4 per la pace.» [Fonte]

Nel 2017 la fondazione che governa il Mit aveva un capitale di 14.968 miliardi Usd. Dieci anni fa, nel 2008, erano 10.069 miliardi Usd.

Come ha fatto a tesaurizzare un simile capitale in dieci anni? Semplice: incamerando fondi federali per il ‘clima’, le energie rinnovabile, e così via. Poi, indubbiamente sanno gestire bene il proprio capitale.

Ma questi fiumi impetuosi di denaro stanno esaurendosi, e l’urlo di dolore che si leva dai liberal affamati supera la ionosfera. Tranquilli: non è problema di credo ideologico, ma di mettere il mestolo nel minestrone. Quindi via il ‘clima’, resta il surriscaldamento, ben venga il nucleare. E quindi, giù nuovi fondi.

I liberal democratici adorano mammona.

* * * * * * *

Attenzione. Da leggersi con cura sovra le righe.

«new policy models and cost-cutting technologies could help nuclear play vital role in climate solutions.»

*

«The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve»

*

«Our analysis demonstrates that realizing nuclear energy’s potential is essential to achieving a deeply decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world »

*

«Incorporating new policy and business models, as well as innovations in construction that may make deployment of cost-effective nuclear power plants more affordable, could enable nuclear energy to help meet the growing global demand for energy generation while decreasing emissions to address climate change»

*

«Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically»

*

«policymakers should avoid premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets.»

* * * * * * * *

I tempi sono mutati radicalmente.

Chi avesse sostenuto codeste tesi due anni or sono sarebbe stato crocefisso nel corridoio dei passi perduti.



MIT News. 2018-09-04. MIT Energy Initiative study reports on the future of nuclear energy

Findings suggest new policy models and cost-cutting technologies could help nuclear play vital role in climate solutions.

*

How can the world achieve the deep carbon emissions reductions that are necessary to slow or reverse the impacts of climate change? The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve. For nuclear energy to take its place as a major low-carbon energy source, however, issues of cost and policy need to be addressed.

In “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World,” released by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) on Sept. 3, the authors analyze the reasons for the current global stall of nuclear energy capacity — which currently accounts for only 5 percent of global primary energy production — and discuss measures that could be taken to arrest and reverse that trend.

The study group, led by MIT researchers in collaboration with colleagues from Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is presenting its findings and recommendations at events in London, Paris, and Brussels this week, followed by events on Sept. 25 in Washington, and on Oct. 9 in Tokyo. MIT graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs, as well as faculty from Harvard University and members of various think tanks, also contributed to the study as members of the research team.

“Our analysis demonstrates that realizing nuclear energy’s potential is essential to achieving a deeply decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world,” says study co-chair Jacopo Buongiorno, the TEPCO Professor and associate department head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT. He adds, “Incorporating new policy and business models, as well as innovations in construction that may make deployment of cost-effective nuclear power plants more affordable, could enable nuclear energy to help meet the growing global demand for energy generation while decreasing emissions to address climate change.”

The study team notes that the electricity sector in particular is a prime candidate for deep decarbonization. Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically.

“Understanding the opportunities and challenges facing the nuclear energy industry requires a comprehensive analysis of technical, commercial, and policy dimensions,” says Robert Armstrong, director of MITEI and the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering. “Over the past two years, this team has examined each issue, and the resulting report contains guidance policymakers and industry leaders may find valuable as they evaluate options for the future.”

The report discusses recommendations for nuclear plant construction, current and future reactor technologies, business models and policies, and reactor safety regulation and licensing. The researchers find that changes in reactor construction are needed to usher in an era of safer, more cost-effective reactors, including proven construction management practices that can keep nuclear projects on time and on budget.

“A shift towards serial manufacturing of standardized plants, including more aggressive use of fabrication in factories and shipyards, can be a viable cost-reduction strategy in countries where the productivity of the traditional construction sector is low,” says MIT visiting research scientist David Petti, study executive director and Laboratory Fellow at the Idaho National Laboratory. “Future projects should also incorporate reactor designs with inherent and passive safety features.”

These safety features could include core materials with high chemical and physical stability and engineered safety systems that require limited or no emergency AC power and minimal external intervention. Features like these can reduce the probability of severe accidents occurring and mitigate offsite consequences in the event of an incident. Such designs can also ease the licensing of new plants and accelerate their global deployment.

“The role of government will be critical if we are to take advantage of the economic opportunity and low-carbon potential that nuclear has to offer,” says John Parsons, study co-chair and senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “If this future is to be realized, government officials must create new decarbonization policies that put all low-carbon energy technologies (i.e. renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture) on an equal footing, while also exploring options that spur private investment in nuclear advancement.”

The study lays out detailed options for government support of nuclear. For example, the authors recommend that policymakers should avoid premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets. One way to avoid these closures is the implementation of zero-emissions credits — payments made to electricity producers where electricity is generated without greenhouse gas emissions — which the researchers note are currently in place in New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Another suggestion from the study is that the government support development and demonstration of new nuclear technologies through the use of four “levers”: funding to share regulatory licensing costs; funding to share research and development costs; funding for the achievement of specific technical milestones; and funding for production credits to reward successful demonstration of new designs.

The study includes an examination of the current nuclear regulatory climate, both in the United States and internationally. While the authors note that significant social, political, and cultural differences may exist among many of the countries in the nuclear energy community, they say that the fundamental basis for assessing the safety of nuclear reactor programs is fairly uniform, and should be reflected in a series of basic aligned regulatory principles. They recommend regulatory requirements for advanced reactors be coordinated and aligned internationally to enable international deployment of commercial reactor designs, and to standardize and ensure a high level of safety worldwide.

The study concludes with an emphasis on the urgent need for both cost-cutting advancements and forward-thinking policymaking to make the future of nuclear energy a reality.

“The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World” is the eighth in the “Future of…” series of studies that are intended to serve as guides to researchers, policymakers, and industry. Each report explores the role of technologies that might contribute at scale in meeting rapidly growing global energy demand in a carbon-constrained world. Nuclear power was the subject of the first of these interdisciplinary studies, with the 2003 “Future of Nuclear Powerreport (an update was published in 2009). The series has also included a study on the future of the nuclear fuel cycle. Other reports in the series have focused on carbon dioxide sequestration, natural gas, the electric grid, and solar power. These comprehensive reports are written by multidisciplinary teams of researchers. The research is informed by a distinguished external advisory committee.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Bloomberg accusato di stipendiare assistenti dei PG con fondi per il ‘clima’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-05.

Mazzetta Tangente 001

L’accusa è particolarmente grave, ed arriva a poca distanza di tempo dalle dimissioni del procuratore generale di New York, un liberal democratico granitico.

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

In quell’articolo avevamo preconizzato:

«E siamo solo agli inizi».

* * * * * * *

«Bloomberg accused of hijacking justice system with donor-funded climate-change prosecutors»

*

«With their busy schedules and tight state budgets, Democratic attorneys general have little in the way of time and resources to advance climate-change policies, which is where billionaire Michael Bloomberg comes in»

*

«The former New York City mayor’s fortune has bankrolled a year-long effort to place privately funded lawyers as “special assistant attorneys general” in at least six states with specific instructions to work on “clean energy, climate change, and environmental interests.”»

*

«The program, run through the New York University School of Law, comes as the most disturbing example of the “billion-dollar per year climate industry” gaining access to law-enforcement authority in pursuit of a political agenda, according to a report released Wednesday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute»

*

«The scheme raises serious questions about special interests setting states’ policy and law enforcement agendas, without accountability to the taxpayers and voters whom these law enforcement officials supposedly serve,” said CEI senior fellow Chris Horner, who authored the report, “Law Enforcement for Rent: How Special Interests Fund Climate Policy Through State Attorneys General»

*

«open-records requests and court orders, called for “prompt and serious legislative oversight” into the off-the-books infiltration of state law-enforcement offices by lawyers dedicated to the climate agenda»

*

«It represents private interests commandeering the state’s police powers to target opponents of their policy agenda and to hijack the justice system as a way to overturn the democratic process’s rejection of a political agenda»

*

«The State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at NYU, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, formed in response to the Trump administration to help attorneys general “fight regulatory roll-backs and other actions that undermine clean energy, climate change, and environmental values and protections»

*

«Salaries for the “special assistant attorneys general,” or SAAGs, range from $75,000 to $149,483 annually for a two-year commitment»

* * * * * * *

Ci sarebbe ben poco, oppure troppo tanto, da commentare.

I fondi elargiti dagli utili … pecoroni belanti erano usati per piazzare nelle procure personale non selezionato da pubblico concorso o vidimato dalle elezioni: ma questi “special assistant attorneys general” avevano tutti i poteri necessari per bloccare le iniziative del Governo federale e perseguitare i ‘negazionisti‘.

Ci sarebbe un termine specifico per indicare quando i giudici, che dovrebbero agire per nome e per conto del popolo sovrano, siano pagati da un privato per perseguire un determinato fine, ma non vogliamo usarlo.


The Washington Times. 2018-09-03. Bloomberg accused of hijacking justice system with donor-funded climate-change prosecutors

Critic: Plan raises alarm over special interests setting policy, law enforcement agendas, without accountability.

*

With their busy schedules and tight state budgets, Democratic attorneys general have little in the way of time and resources to advance climate-change policies, which is where billionaire Michael Bloomberg comes in.

The former New York City mayor’s fortune has bankrolled a year-long effort to place privately funded lawyers as “special assistant attorneys general” in at least six states with specific instructions to work on “clean energy, climate change, and environmental interests.”

The program, run through the New York University School of Law, comes as the most disturbing example of the “billion-dollar per year climate industry” gaining access to law-enforcement authority in pursuit of a political agenda, according to a report released Wednesday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“The scheme raises serious questions about special interests setting states’ policy and law enforcement agendas, without accountability to the taxpayers and voters whom these law enforcement officials supposedly serve,” said CEI senior fellow Chris Horner, who authored the report, “Law Enforcement for Rent: How Special Interests Fund Climate Policy Through State Attorneys General.”

Mr. Horner, who spent two-and-a-half years collecting emails and documents through the open-records requests and court orders, called for “prompt and serious legislative oversight” into the off-the-books infiltration of state law-enforcement offices by lawyers dedicated to the climate agenda.

“It represents private interests commandeering the state’s police powers to target opponents of their policy agenda and to hijack the justice system as a way to overturn the democratic process’s rejection of a political agenda,” the report said.

State attorneys general have increasingly become political foils for the White House — Republican prosecutors challenged Obamacare and the Clean Power Plan, while Democrats have filed more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration — but critics say the specter of donor-funded prosecutors rises to a new level.

The State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at NYU, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, formed in response to the Trump administration to help attorneys general “fight regulatory roll-backs and other actions that undermine clean energy, climate change, and environmental values and protections.”

The center accepts applications from state attorneys general who demonstrate “a need and a commitment to advancing clean energy matters.” Salaries for the “special assistant attorneys general,” or SAAGs, range from $75,000 to $149,483 annually for a two-year commitment, the report said.

Among the states that have taken on SAAGs is New York, but Amy Spitalnick, spokeswoman and senior policy adviser for New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, described the partnership as unexceptional.

“Climate deniers continue to find new and creative ways to distract from reality. All OAG employees are accountable to the AG, period — and we’re proud of the talented team of lawyers and staff members that are part of the AG’s successful fight to protect clean water, clean air, and New Yorkers’ health,” she said in an email.

Christopher Gray, SEEIC spokesman, pointed to application language affirming that “the SAAGs’ sole duty of loyalty is to the attorney general who hired them” and that noted that the program details are spelled out on the website.

“At no point has there been a concerted effort by the State Impact Center to hide anything that we have been working on,” Mr. Gray said.

As part of the application process, he said, attorneys general must demonstrate the need for additional legal resources, and that “having an NYU fellow is consistent with any applicable state law.”

Every attorney general was invited to apply for legal fellows, he said, although no Republican AG has done so.

Meanwhile, critics of the alliance have argued it would be akin to, for example, Republican attorneys general bringing on prosecutors funded by Americans United for Life to work on Planned Parenthood issues.

Zack Roday, spokesman for the Republican Attorneys General Association, said the report “sheds necessary light on how powerful special interests operate on the left.”

“Democrats have sold out their voters; instead, they are allowing activist lawyers directed by New York University Law School — paid for by Michael Bloomberg — to go after anyone opposing their extreme political agenda,” Mr. Roday said. “It’s wrong and these shameless AGs should be called out for deceiving the public.”

Educational institutions and other non-profits may partner with prosecutors on placing interns or providing grants, but “not for litigation,” Mr. Roday said.

“That’s why this is so unprecedented,” said Mr. Roday, adding that nothing of its kind exists on the GOP side.

The roots of the climate-prosecutorial nexus date back to a 2012 meeting of activist groups in La Jolla, California, followed by former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s 2015 lawsuit against ExxonMobil and AGs United for Clean Power, the 17-state coalition launched in 2016 to pursue the fossil-fuel industry.

The coalition has since all but disbanded, although lawsuits against Exxon filed by the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general are ongoing, despite Mr. Schneiderman’s abrupt resignation in May over allegations of physical abuse made by four women.

Cities and counties have since picked up the legal mantle. A dozen localities, as well as the state of Rhode Island, have sued oil-and-gas companies seeking compensation for damages allegedly caused by climate change, although federal judges recently threw out cases filed by New York City, San Francisco and Oakland.