Prosegue il braccio di ferro tra il Presidente Trump ed il Congresso, guidato da Mrs Nancy Pelosi.
«The White House on Friday barred Congress members from using government planes without prior written approval, a day after delaying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s planned foreign trip amid the standoff over the partial government shutdown»
«Under no circumstances during a government shutdown will any government owned, rented, leased or chartered aircraft support any Congressional delegation, without the express written approval of the White House Chief of Staff»
«Nor will any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch be used for any Congressional delegation travel expenses, without his express written approval»
«During this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown»
* * * * * * * *
Abbiamo ben troppi guai in casa nostra per sindacare quelli degli altri.
Pur tuttavia prendiamo atto come tra Mr Trump e Mrs Pelosi si stia innescando una spirale di ripicche che giova a tutto tranne che al buon governo degli Stati Uniti.
Ci si rende perfettamente conto di quanto i liberal democratici odino Mr Trump, ma in ogni caso è il loro presidente per almeno ancora due anni.
Si consolino che a Davos all’assenza di mr Trump si è unita quella di Mrs May, di Mr Xi e, da buon ultimo, anche quella di Mr Macron.
The White House on Friday barred Congress members from using government planes without prior written approval, a day after delaying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s planned foreign trip amid the standoff over the partial government shutdown.
“Under no circumstances during a government shutdown will any government owned, rented, leased or chartered aircraft support any Congressional delegation, without the express written approval of the White House Chief of Staff,” Russell Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced in a memo to department heads.
“Nor will any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch be used for any Congressional delegation travel expenses, without his express written approval,” the memo said.
A day earlier, President Donald Trump told Pelosi that her planned seven-day trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan will be rescheduled when the shutdown is over.
“During this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown,” the president wrote in a letter to the top House Democrat on Thursday.
In response, Pelosi’s office said she had to cancel a commercial trip to Afghanistan because the Trump administration leaked details of it, undermining security for the lawmakers who planned to go.
The shutdown, the longest in the U.S. history, started on Dec. 22 due to a budget standoff in which Trump requested 5.7 billion U.S. dollars for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but congressional Democrats rejected his demand.
Pigliati con le mani nella marmellata, i redattori dello Spiegel sono stati licenziati: si inventavano semplicemente dati ed articoli per compiacere i propri padroni liberal. Diciamo che il Kbg non si sarebbe mai fatto pescare così in malo modo, ma l’odio acceca.
Ma potrebbe mai un liberal democratico vivere senza menzogne, senza bugie, senza falsità?
Ecco che scendi in campo il Buzzfeed.
«BuzzFeed News reported Thursday evening that Trump had personally directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a real estate project in Moscow. The report cited two federal law enforcement sources and said the special counsel’s office had learned of Trump’s alleged directive from multiple witnesses, Trump Organization emails, text messages and other documents»
Di fronte a codesta enormità, rompendo un silenzio secolare,
«In a rare public remark, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller disputed a bombshell report alleging that Donald Trump had directed his former attorney to lie to congress …. Mr Mueller’s office said the report by Buzzfeed News was “not accurate”»
Tradotto dal linguaggio curiale, quanto riportato dal Buzzfeed è pura invenzione: menzogna.
* * * * * * *
Sono più di due anni che i liberal democratici stanno disperatamente cercando di trovare un qualcosa cui appigliarsi contro il Presidente Trump. Se avessero dedicato le stesse energie a concorrere al governo degli Stati Uniti, ora l’America sarebbe in capo al mondo.
Che poi, a guardar bene, motivi di pettegolezzi ce ne sarebbero per i beati.
«Mr. Sanders skipped an important Senate vote on Russia sanctions to attend the meeting around noontime. He was the only senator not to appear as Republicans blocked a Democratic resolution to prevent the Trump administration from easing sanctions on a Russian oligarch. The measure, which required 60 votes to proceed, was defeated, 57 to 42, and his vote would not have affected the outcome. ….
allegations emerged about mistreatment of women during his 2016 campaign»
Eppure la notizia che il sen Sauders abbia dovuto disertare una così importante votazione per andare a difendersi dall’accusa di sexual harassment dovrebbe essere ben giotta, ,,,,
«Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as “not accurate” Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s office, in a statement.
It’s highly unusual for the special counsel’s office to provide a statement to the media — outside of court filings and judicial hearings — about any of its ongoing investigative activities»
«In a rare public remark, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller disputed a bombshell report alleging that Donald Trump had directed his former attorney to lie to congress.
BuzzFeed News reported Thursday evening that Trump had personally directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a real estate project in Moscow. The report cited two federal law enforcement sources and said the special counsel’s office had learned of Trump’s alleged directive from multiple witnesses, Trump Organization emails, text messages and other documents.
But a spokesman for the special counsel’s office issued a rare comment on Friday evening disputing the report.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,”»
Con mossa rara, procuratore speciale disputa ricostruzione fatti.
Con una mossa rara, il procuratore speciale del Russiagate Robert Mueller ha contestato l’articolo di BuzzFeed, secondo cui Donald Trump ha ordinato al suo avvocato Michael Cohen di mentire al Congresso sul progetto per una Trump Tower a Mosca. “La descrizione di BuzzFeed di dichiarazioni specifiche all’ufficio del procuratore speciale, e la caratterizzazione di documenti e deposizioni ottenute da questo ufficio, riguardanti la testimonianza al Congresso di Michael Cohen non sono accurate”, ha detto un portavoce.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has canceled a public appearance scheduled for January 29 after missing two weeks of oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
Tuesday evening the Skirball Center announced the cancellation of “An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” part of an ongoing exhibit by the Cultural Center titled: “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
While her exact condition is unknown, “top cancer surgeons” told CNBC they expect the 85-year-old Justice to be back on the bench in less than six weeks after fracturing three ribs and undergoing surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung over a two-month span.
Ginsburg’s January 29 appearance was announced on December 20 – one day before her lung surgery. She was released from the hospital four days later. On January 7, Chief Justice John Roberts said Ginsburg was “unable to be present doay,” adding that she would still participate from home. A court spokesperson said earlier that day that Ginsburg would participate in cases “on the basis of briefs, filings and transcripts.”
Weekend at Ruth’s?
Ginsburg’s absence from the bench – and now her late-January event cancellation, has stoked rumors over social media that the oldest Supreme Court Justice is actually dead, with doubters demanding proof-of-life under hashtags such as #WeekendAtRuths, a reference to the popular 1989 film Weekend At Bernie’s.
This wasn’t enough to satisfy some critics who pointed to the fact that you can’t see her face in the video, as noted by the Daily Dot‘s Mike Rothschild.
«Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pulled out of two upcoming speaking engagements as she recovers from cancer surgery in December, according to reports.
The 85-year-old Ginsburg was slated to appear January 29 at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles. A February 6 event featuring Ginsburg and private equity titan and philanthropist David Rubenstein in New York City was also canceled.
“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regrets that she is unable to attend the talk with David Rubenstein at 92Y on February 6,” 92nd Street Y told CNN. “She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery.”»
– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Congresso.
– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali, ove esplicitamente dichiarato, hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, ma sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.
– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).
^ ^ ^
Nessuno quindi si scandalizzi, né dovrebbe scandalizzarsi, che su molti argomenti le sentenze siano atti squisitamente politici, essendo i giudici dei politici nominati dalla politica: prima politici e solo secondariamente giudici.
Nei fatti, il controllo politico di almeno una Corte di Appello Federale consente ad un partito politico di bloccare, se non altro temporaneamente, le iniziative politiche sia del Presidente degli Stati Uniti, sia del Congresso, sia anche del Senato.
Se nella storia le Corti Federali hanno usualmente evidenziato una ragionevole serenità di giudizio, negli ultimi decenni la componente liberal democratica le ha fatte virare a veri e propri centri di potere politico, a mo’ di surroga del potere elettivo.
L’attuale guerra civile che intercorre tra liberal democratici e repubblicani non verte tanto sulla natura dei provvedimenti sottoposti a giudizio, quanto piuttosto sul controllo della composizione delle Corti.
Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.
Orbene, i giudici federali del 9th circuito sono nella quasi totalità liberal democratici, e costituiscono il gruppo di fuoco di quel partito.
* * * * * * *
Con l’avvento di Mr Trump alla Presidenza i giudici del 9th circuito si sono attivati in massa per inficiare i provvedimenti da lui presi. Poi, con i debiti tempi tecnici, la quasi totalità di quelle sentenze è stata abrogata dal parere definitivo ed inappellabile della Suprema Corte: ma il problema non è giuridico, bensì politico.
Infatti, appena emesse quelle sentenze, tutti i media liberal inneggiano al fatto come se fosse un trionfo politico, salvo poi chiudersi in un dignitoso riserbo dopo la pronuncia avversa della Corte Suprema.
«A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC»
«The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.»
«But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy. Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it»
«Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules»
«The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system»
* * * * * * *
L’ideologia liberal socialista ha alcuni dogmi: la migrazione, l’aborto, la legalizzazione delle perversioni sessuali ed il ‘clima‘.
Sembrerebbe quasi che non riesca a concepire qualcosa di altro.
Con tutti i grandi problemi politici, sociali ed economici che gravano minacciosi sugli Stati Uniti, far di questi topic bandiera e non riuscire a parlar d’altro sembrerebbe essere cosa veramente troppo riduttiva.
Aspetteremo con pazienza che in materia si pronunci la Suprema Corte.
A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC.
The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.
The rules were to come into effect nationwide from Monday.
But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy.
Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it.
While Judge Haywood Gilliam did not make a final decision, he said the rules could mean a “substantial number” of women would lose birth control coverage, a “massive policy shift” which could breach federal law.
“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s healthcare decisions.”
But the US Department of Justice said in court documents that the new rules defended “a narrow class of sincere religious and moral objectors” and stopped them from conducting practices “that conflict with their beliefs”.
Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules.
Mr Trump’s rule change could force state governments to provide additional birth control coverage, Mr Becerra said, and pay health costs arising from unplanned pregnancies.
Aside from California and Washington DC, the new rules will not yet apply in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Virginia.
The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.
While the requirement included a provision letting religious institutions forgo birth control coverage for their employees, President Trump’s rule change widened the number of employers and insurers who could opt out, including on the grounds of “moral convictions”.
Conservative and religious groups welcomed the shift, while civil rights and health groups have criticised the change.
Gli ispanici assommavano a 54,232,205 individui, 16.49% della popolazione.
Gli ispanici presentano 899,000 nascite sul totale di 3,855,500 bambini nati, ossia il 23.32%.
Questi dati sono inequivocabili.
La popolazione americana ispanica ha un numero di nascite sette punti percentuali circa maggiore di quello della popolazione bianca, per cui la sua incidenza percentuale sulla popolazione totale è destinata a crescere rapidamente nel tempo.
Se è cosa ovvia che i cittadini ispanici siano tali a tutti gli effetti, altrettanto evidente è il fatto che il loro modo di vivere e concepire la realtà risente in modo sensibile della propria origine, come peraltro è giusto che sia.
«More than half of the nation’s Hispanic baby births came from just three states: California, Texas and Florida.»
Ci si prepari quindi a vedere nel tempo una sempre maggiore ispanizzazione degli Stati Uniti, con una corrispettiva riduzione della popolazione bianca, di discendenza puritana e luterana. Con le logiche conseguenze sociali e politiche ampiamente riportate nella pubblicazione sulla stratificazione del voto.
– S. Dakota, Utah are only states with needed replacement rate
– White children were minority in 13 U.S. states plus DC in 2017
White children were a minority among births in 13 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia, according to 2017 data released by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In Hawaii, less than 1 in 5 children were born to, non-Hispanic, single-race white mothers; while in New Mexico, California, Texas as well as Washington DC fewer than one third of child births were.
In New Mexico, the majority of children were born to Hispanic mothers with about two Hispanic children born for each white, non-Hispanic child. At the other extreme, in Maine, West Virginia and Vermont more than 40 white children were born for every Hispanic child.
Overall, 3,855,500 children were born in the U.S. in 2017.
California leads all states with 471,658 births, followed by Texas, New York and Florida.
South Dakota and Utah, were the only states with fertility rates above that of replacement level — an equilibrium of flat population growth achieved by new birth only, without migration. In other words, the population of the remaining 48 states plus the District of Columbia would have shrunken without either domestic or international migration. South Dakota had the highest overall total fertility rate in the United States (2,227.5 births per 1,000 women).
In the majority of states, Hispanic births outpaced non-Hispanic black births. Overall, about one-third of a million more Hispanic children were born compared to black kids in 2017. More than half of the nation’s Hispanic baby births came from just three states: California, Texas and Florida.
However, births of black babies outpaced Hispanic ones by more than a 3 to 1 margin in Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Ohio, the nation’s capitol as well as Mississippi, where ten black babies were born for every Hispanic one, the highest relative comparison.
«The Order of Precedence of The United States of America.
Revised on November 3, 2017.
The United States Order of Precedence is an advisory document maintained by the Ceremonials Division of the Office of the Chief of Protocol. For purposes of protocol, the U.S. Order of Precedence establishes the order and ranking of the United States leadership for official events at home and abroad. Although this document establishes a general order for the country’s highest-level positions, it does not include every positional title across the federal government. Offices of Protocol for the Executive Departments and independent agencies should be consulted for internal rankings regarding positions not listed. ….
In 1908, the Roosevelt Administration created the first U.S. Order of Precedence as a means of settling a history of embarrassment, confusion and miscommunication amongst officials invited to events at the White House. As the structure of the federal government has evolved over time this list has adapted and grown. The President of the United States may make adjustments to The Cabinet, giving certain White House positions the status of Cabinet-rank, positions which then follow the heads of the Executive Departments.
One of the primary uses of the order of precedence is in diplomacy. International rules on precedence were first established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. By determining that envoys of equal title would be ranked according to the date and hour that they presented their credentials to the government that accredited them for service, the Congress of Vienna solidified a fair and justifiable system for diplomatic relations. These same rules are still used to determine the order of precedence of the Diplomatic Corps in Washington, D.C. Additionally, when on official business in the United States, foreign government officials are afforded the same protocol ranking as their corresponding position in the United States government.
A few basic principles regarding precedence should be noted. First, the host or hostess of a meeting or event always takes the primary position of precedence, regardless of their title or traditional ranking. Second, a person’s relative precedence may increase or decrease depending on the policy or context behind the particular meeting or event, or based on the wishes of the host on any occasion.»
* * * * * * *
«The EU says the US government has changed the bloc’s diplomatic status in Washington, in practice downgrading it.»
«The Trump administration did not notify the EU about the change»
«Previously it has been US practice to treat the EU delegation and ambassador “as a country would be”»
«The US ranks the diplomatic status of international organisations lower»
«the list itself, which describes the EU as an international organisation»
«the head of an international organisation “should be considered equivalent to a chief of state or head of government, but should be listed in precedence order, after all official representatives of the sovereign nations present”»
«US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had questioned the EU’s role, in a major policy speech»
«Brexit – if nothing else – was a political wake-up call. Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?”»
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ha messo il dito nella piaga.
Come può un rappresentante dell’Unione Europea affermare che rappresenta tutti gli stati dell’Unione quando il Regno Unito ha dovuto staccarsene?
È sequenziale come le procedure protocollari seguano i provvedimenti politici, non viceversa.
Si prenda nota quindi che da ora i rappresentanti dell’Unione Europea non rappresentano più diplomaticamente l’Unione.
Gran brutto colpo per i gerarchi dell’Europa, che Mr Pompeo definisce “bureaucrats in Brussels”
The EU says the US government has changed the bloc’s diplomatic status in Washington, in practice downgrading it.
The Trump administration did not notify the EU about the change. The EU has asked the US to explain the move, EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic says.
Previously it has been US practice to treat the EU delegation and ambassador “as a country would be”, an EU source told the BBC.
The US ranks the diplomatic status of international organisations lower.
The EU source, who declined to be named, said the US had changed the way the diplomatic list was implemented, but not the list itself, which describes the EU as an international organisation.
The US state department’s order of precedence says the head of an international organisation “should be considered equivalent to a chief of state or head of government, but should be listed in precedence order, after all official representatives of the sovereign nations present”.
Change of protocol
The change comes amid heightened trade tensions, with the EU anxious to dissuade President Donald Trump from slapping a 20% tariff on all imported EU cars. Last year the US and EU imposed tit-for-tat tariffs on a range of goods.
Ms Kocijancic said: “We understand that there was a recent change in the way the diplomatic precedence list is implemented by the United States’ Protocol.
“We are discussing with the relevant services in the [US] administration possible implications for the EU delegation in Washington. We were not notified of any change. We expect the diplomatic practice established some years ago to be observed.”
She stressed that the EU and US “remain natural partners, natural friends”.
US diplomatic snub
The status change was first reported by German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. An EU official told it that the EU’s Washington ambassador, David O’Sullivan, had not been invited to certain events last year.
At the state funeral for the late President George HW Bush, on 5 December, the EU’s ambassador was not called up in the usual chronological order, from the longest-serving to the newest ambassador, “but he was called up as the last person”, the EU official said.
The previous day, in Brussels, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had questioned the EU’s role, in a major policy speech.
“Brexit – if nothing else – was a political wake-up call. Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?” he asked.
He took issue with the liberal consensus view of multilateral organisations, such as the EU, as guardians of peace and security. He did however praise the EU’s contribution to European prosperity.
Donald Trump strongly supports UK withdrawal from the EU and has hosted leaders of the Brexit campaign, including Nigel Farage.
Il mercato mondiale delle armi ha fatturato nel 2017 226.6 miliardi di dollari. Gli Stati Uniti sono il primo fornitore mondiale con 129.16 miliardi (57%), mentre la Russia occupa il secondo posto con 37.7 miliardi (9.3%).
Fino a cinque anni or sono la Russia esportava armamenti per valori decisamente molto bassi.
Se è vero che negli ultimi anni la Russia abbia sviluppato sistemi d’arma efficienti e relativamente poco costosi, sarebbe altrettanto vero considerare la mutata strategia militare nel settore della vendita di armamenti.
«Russia’s second-place rank is significant because it proves just how popular its arms have become all across the world since the commencement of its 2015 anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, which showcased the effectiveness of its wares and generated immense global interest in them»
«Furthermore, the recent spree of S-400 sales to China,Turkey, India, and possibly even soon to Saudi Arabia too speaks to the demand that many different countries have for Russia’s defensive assets as well»
«Overall, Russia is being regarded across the world as a reliable military supplier that has no ulterior geopolitical motives in this industry»
«Unlike the US’ weapons sales which usually seek to disrupt the regional balance of power in favor of America’s main partner in the area, Russia’s arms exports don’t discriminate between countries and Moscow is oftentimes seen selling weapons to opposing pairs of countries such as Turkey & Syria, Armenia & Azerbaijan, Iran & Saudi Arabia, India & China, and China & Vietnam»
* * * * * * *
La Russia sembrerebbe avere come obiettivo strategico il mantenimento degli equilibri.
«in advance of Russia’s “military diplomacy” which seeks to retain the balance of power in order to discourage the outbreak of hostilities and encourage a diplomatic solution to regional issues»
«Correspondingly, it makes sense within this paradigm to sell weapons to rival states in order to ensure that neither of them gains an edge over the other as a result of American arms imports and is therefore enticed to aggressively pressure the other to advance the US’ designs in the region»
* * * * * * *
Al momento attuale non è stato dato di vedere un confronto diretto tra le due tipologie di armamento, ovviamente per fortuna del mondo.
In linea generale potremmo però notare alcuni fattori.
Gli armamenti russi si sono dimostrati essere allo stato dell’arte: i sistemi S-300 ed S-400 sono considerati essere quelli maggiormente flessibili ed affidabili sul campo operativo. La Nato ne ha sacro rispetto.
I russi hanno una grande abilità nel progettare sistemi di costruzione semplici, semplici ovviamente per la tipologia di arma. La meccanica dei loro aeroplani lascia estasiati. La conseguente manutenzione ne risulta essere facilitata e meno onerosa.
Altro tratto caratteristico degli armamenti russi è il basso costo di produzione rispetto gli Stati Uniti.
Infine, ampliando un concetto già espresso, la Russia non solleva questione etica o morale alcuna: basta che il cliente paghi e che i nuovi armamenti acquisiti non turbino gli equilibri locoregionali.
* * * * * * *
Il mercato delle armi è davvero complesso: spesso le esigenze della difesa prevalgono sulle attese di guadagno o su quelle di prestigio.
Sul mercato stanno però timidamente affacciandosi anche Cina, India e Pakistan. Per il momento sono armamenti locoregionali, ma soprattutto sono costruiti e resi operativi per costi del tutto stracciati.
Sicuramente gli armamenti americani sono quello che sono, ma alla fine il fattore costo potrebbe diventare determinante.
Facciamo solo un esempio. Un missile anti-nave inintercettabile ha un costo spropositato rispetto a dei missili alquanto vulnerabili, ma di infimo costo: diventa quindi sufficiente lanciarne un decina simultaneamente per ottenere l’affondamento a costi contenuti. È questa una opzione condizionante.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an internationally acclaimed authority on the global arms trade and popularly known by its acronym as SIPRI, released its latest findings on Monday and revealed that Russia overtook the UK to become the world’s second-largest arms producer. According to their data, Russia sold approximately 9.5% of all global weaponry last year, which SIPRI said amounts to $37.7 billion and an 8.5%increase over 2016’s figures. Still, Russia trails far behind the US, which sold 57% of the world’s weapons last year worth around $226.6 billion, which was a 2% increase from the year prior.
In any case, Russia’s second-place rank is significant because it proves just how popular its arms have become all across the world since the commencement of its 2015 anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, which showcased the effectiveness of its wares and generated immense global interest in them. Furthermore, the recent spree of S-400 sales to China,Turkey, India, and possibly even soon to Saudi Arabia too speaks to the demand that many different countries have for Russia’s defensive assets as well. Overall, Russia is being regarded across the world as a reliable military supplier that has no ulterior geopolitical motives in this industry.
Unlike the US’ weapons sales which usually seek to disrupt the regional balance of power in favor of America’s main partner in the area, Russia’s arms exports don’t discriminate between countries and Moscow is oftentimes seen selling weapons to opposing pairs of countries such as Turkey & Syria, Armenia & Azerbaijan, Iran & Saudi Arabia, India & China, and China & Vietnam. This isn’t solely in pursuit of profit, however, but in advance of Russia’s “military diplomacy” which seeks to retain the balance of power in order to discourage the outbreak of hostilities and encourage a diplomatic solution to regional issues.
Correspondingly, it makes sense within this paradigm to sell weapons to rival states in order to ensure that neither of them gains an edge over the other as a result of American arms imports and is therefore enticed to aggressively pressure the other to advance the US’ designs in the region. By having its comparatively cheaper but highly effective arms compete with the US’ much more expensive and sometimes less effective ones, Russia is able to reduce the chances that America’s plans will succeed while simultaneously positioning itself as a neutral mediator for facilitating talks between rival parties, which is the essence of its “balancing” strategy.
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993»
«Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters»
«Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung»
«Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor»
«That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.»
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent cancer surgery last month, was missing from the bench on Monday for the Supreme Court’s first arguments since the court returned from its four-week holiday break»
«Justice Ginsburg, 85, is the senior member of the court’s four-member liberal wing. President Trump has appointed two new members to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, moving it considerably to the right.»
«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be at the Supreme Court Monday morning as it meets for its first day of oral arguments in the new year.
The court’s public information officer said Ginsburg, who is still recovering from surgery last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung, would still be able to vote on the cases by reviewing the transcripts of oral arguments»
«Ginsburg’s absence came midway through the term as the justices will consider petitions concerning some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies, including the phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and his ban on most transgender individuals from serving in the military.»
* * * * * * * *
Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ginsburg di ristabilirsi prontamente,
Notiamo come Bloomberg abbia ben altre preoccupazioni della sua salute:
«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»
Notiamo anche come per Bloomberg fosse di grande importanza la causa della Merck & Co., mentre per la Cnn il punto focale sarebbe stato il programma di ricongiungimento dei minori ed il problema dei transgender nell’esercito.
– She’ll participate using briefs, transcripts, spokeswoman says
– Ginsburg, 85, still recuperating after Dec. 21 cancer surgery
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993.
Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters. The court is hearing two cases today, including a Merck & Co. appeal on patient lawsuits, plus three more cases later in the week.
Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung. She had twice before been treated for other types of cancer — colon and pancreatic — but didn’t miss an argument session during either treatment.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at the start of Monday’s session that Ginsburg “is unable to be present today” but will take part in the cases.
Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor. That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.
Il problema sarebbe davvero semplice da un punto di vista legale: c’è una legge e la si dovrebbe applicare.
Ma la California è una roccaforte liberal democratica che per trenta anni non ha applicato il National Voter Registration Act of 1993, complici il governo locale e quello federale. Con tutte le Corti di Giustizia liberal, manco a dirlo che i ricorsi dei repubblicani erano regolarmente bocciati.
L’oggetto del contendere sono le liste elettorali di molte contee californiane, che contengono molti milioni di iscritti in più rispetto al numero dei cittadini elettori.
Solo che questi milioni di elettori fantasma sono regolarmente andati a votare e, guarda caso, hanno sempre votato i candidati democratici.
I malevoli repubblicani dicono che far votare cittadini inesistenti sarebbe una frode elettorale, mentre i liberal democratici affermano che stavano solo interpretando in modo corretto la volontà popolare.
Adesso la solfa è finita.
«We have signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and the County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid.
These removals are required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations from the voter rolls after two general federal elections (encompassing from 2 to 4 years). Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.»
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 – Requires each State to establish Federal election voter registration procedures by: (1) application made simultaneously with a driver’s license application; (2) mail; and (3) application in person at a designated Federal, State, or nongovernmental office, or at the applicant’s residential registration site in accordance with State law.
Declares that this Act does not apply to any State that has no voter registration requirement with respect to elections for Federal office and/or in which voters may register at the polling place at the time of a general election for Federal office.
(Sec. 5) Declares that each State motor vehicle license application (or renewal application) shall simultaneously serve as a voter registration application with respect to Federal elections, unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) forms and procedures; and (2) transmittal deadlines.
(Sec. 6) Requires each State to use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Federal Election Commission (Commission). Authorizes a State to develop its own form provided it meets the requirements of this Act.
Authorizes a State to require first-time voters to vote in person, with exceptions for overseas and handicapped or elderly persons.
Authorizes the removal of a voter application in the case of an undelivered (returned) notice of an application made by mail.
(Sec. 7) Requires each State to designate voter registration agencies including: (1) all State offices that provide public assistance, unemployment compensation, or disability services; (2) State or local government offices; (3) Federal and nongovernmental offices (upon their agreement); and (4) armed forces recruitment offices.
(Sec. 8) Requires each State to: (1) assure that any eligible applicant who submits an application by a certain deadline is registered to vote in the election; (2) require the appropriate State election official to notify each applicant of the disposition of the application; (3) provide that the name of a voter may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except by reason of death, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, change in residence, or voter request; (4) inform applicants of voter eligibility requirements and penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application; (5) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from the official lists any voters ineligible by reason of death or change of address; and (6) ensure tht the identity of any voter registration agency where a particular voter registered is not publicly disclosed.
Provides that any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by assuring an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office shall: (1) be uniform and nondiscriminatory; and (2) not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of registered voters for failing to vote.
Prohibits a State from removing the name of a voter from the official list of eligible voters for Federal elections on the grounds that the registrant has moved, unless such registrant: (1) confirms in writing that he or she has changed residence to a place outside the jurisdiction of the registrar; or (2) has failed to respond to a notice from the registrar and has not appeared to vote and, if necessary, correct the address in an election during a certain period.
Provides for the opportunity to vote of a person who has changed address without properly notifying the registrar.
States that in the event of a change of address, for voting purposes, of a voter to another address within the same jurisdiction, the registrar shall correct the voting registration list accordingly. Prohibits such voter’s name from being removed from the registry of eligible voters by reason of such change of address, except as provided in this Act.
Requires the United States attorney to give the chief State election official written notice of an offender’s felony conviction in Federal district court.»
È del tutto naturale che un attornay liberal democratico non troverà alcunché di felony nel far votare i morti, purché abbiano votato democratico. Lo diceva anche Al Capone e don Gambino.
«Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.’
‘California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country’»
«Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc.et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.
Judicial Watch argues that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:
Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.
Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the EAC, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.
The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.
Judicial Watch points out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:
About 21% of all of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.
California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.
Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.
Judicial Watch explains that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”
Judicial Watch sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but was told each time that there were no responsive records. ….»
* * * * * * *
Alla fine la questione è arrivata alla United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division.
Quasi di norma le vere motivazioni della politica estera sono sottotaciute, pudicamente. Ma il fatto che non si ami parlarne non significa per nulla che non esistano e non pesino.
«Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty by developing a long-range ground-launched cruise missile ….
The importance of banning ground-launched intermediate range weapons (per the treaty, with a range between 310 and 3,420 miles) is understandably not very intuitive to the public. You can read a longer explanation here , but the heart of the matter is that ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles could be launched so promptly—and traverse the distance to their targets so quickly—that an adversary facing an attack by them was left with too little time to respond with anything other than a full nuclear broadside in return. ….
The truck-borne launcher of what appeared to be a 9M729 missile was the Iskander ground-based tactical missile system, which normally hurls a short-range (max 300 miles) ballistic missiles arcing up into space before plunging down on their targets approaching six times the speed of sound.
The 9M729 was meant to be an alternate cruise-missile type weapon for the Iskander. As long as this adhered to the range restriction for ground-launched weapons, this too would be in compliance. However, in 2015 arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis posted a side-by-side photo analysis of images of the ground-launched 9M729 missile highlighting its near-identical appearance to the SS-C-8.» [Fonte]
«Il sistema Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (Aegis BMD o ABMD) è un programma del United States Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency sviluppato per creare una difesa missilistica contro missili balistici di corto e medio raggio. Fa parte del United States national missile defense. Aegis BMD (anche noto come Sea-Based Midcourse) è disegnato per intercettare missili balistici in fase post-boost e prima del rientro in atmosfera.
È in grado su navi da guerra di colpire missili balistici aumentando l’azione del Aegis Combat System con l’aggiunta di radar AN/SPY-1 e missili standard. Vascelli con Aegis BMD possono trasmettere gli obiettivi al Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, se necessario, ingaggiando i bersagli con missili SM-2 o SM-3.
Aegis BMD non ha capacità di intercettare missili ICBM, e versioni future potranno avere capacità limitata in questo senso.
Il sistema corrente utilizza tecnologia Lockheed Martin Aegis Weapon System e Raytheon RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3). Altri subcontractor includono Boeing Defense, Space & Security, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Honeywell, Naval Surface Warfare Center, SPAWAR Systems Center, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), e Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (Lincoln Lab). ….
Una componente terrestre, Aegis Ashore, è pianificata. Questo sistema terrestre prevede l’utilizzo delle piattaforme navali su terra. Incluso i radar SPY-1 e batterie di missili standard 3. L’amministrazione Obama ha pianificato due siti in Europa: il primo in Romania a Deveselu nel 2015 e il secondo in Polonia nel 2018. Nel 2020, entrambi avranno a disposizione l’ultima versione Aegis BMD software e l’ultima versione di SM-3. Altre basi radar saranno dispiegate in Turchia in futuro. ….
Il sistema Aegis BMD, in coppia con il RIM-161 Standard missile (SM-3), ha dimostrato una capacità limitata come arma anti-satellite per satelliti in orbita bassa (low Earth orbit).» [Fonte]
«The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned American missile defense base. It was intended to contain 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles that had a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The first planned complex was to be located near Redzikowo, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a U.S. narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. EIS was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland from 2018.» [Fonte]
* * * * * * * *
Adesso che abbiamo gli elementi di base, cerchiamo di ragionare.
Suggeriremmo ai Lettori di dimenticarsi i particolari e dismettere ogni forma di pregiudizio.
– Il trattato Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) è obsoleto. I missili ipersonici non erano previsti, né all’epoca erano prevedibili, dal trattato. Una nuova negoziazione è mandatoria, almeno fino a tanto che i nuovi missili non siano diventati la norma.
– Missili e siluri ipersonici anti – nave pongono serissime remore al valore militare che abbiano adesso le navi portaerei, che risulterebbero essere virtualmente indifese. Un missile da 50,000 euro può affondare una portaerei che è costata 15 miliardi e che ha necessitato dieci anni di tempo di costruzione. È finita l’era delle portaerei, e con esse del dominio americano dei mari fino alle coste avversarie. E lo Status-6 è un satanico sistema strategico di difesa atomica:è stato progettato per affamare dal mare i sopravvissuti ad un olocausto nucleare.
– Essersi incaponiti a militarizzare i paesi dell’ex est Europa sotto l’ombrello atomico della Nato ed il tentativo di militarizzare l’Ukraina dopo averla destabilizzata sono stati grossolani errori di valutazione che hanno spinto la Russia ad inventarsi armi nuove, per contrastare questa minaccia.
– Kaliningrad è stata rapidamente trasformata in un immane arsenale di missili ipersonici atomici.
– I sistemi Aegis sono in grado di intercettare un parte dei missili russi ancora in linea, anche se vi siano forti dubbi sulla capacità di distruggere gli Iskander. Portarli a ridosso delle linee di confine garantisce una certa quale protezione, ma altro non fa che spingere i russi al continuo miglioramento del loro rsenale atomico.
Gli schieramenti dell’Aegis condizionano de facto il sistema politico europeo.
A quanto è dato di sapere, le sue principali basi sarebbero Redzikowo in Polonia, Deveselu in Romania, Brdy nella Repubblica Ceka. Voci riporterebbero anche una base in Ungheria.
Le conseguenze sono evidenti.
L’Unione Europea può fingere di fare la voce grossa contro i paesi dell’est europeo, rei di non condividere la Weltanschauung dell’élite ora al potere, ma sia Mr Macron sia Frau Merkel sono anatre zoppe e pesano meno di nulla in seno alla Nato.
Polonia, Repubblica Ceka, Romania ed Ungheria si sono prestate ad ospitare basi Aegis e devono in una qualche maniera essere ricompensate: essere assurte a bersagli atomici è un onore di cui volentieri avrebbero fatto a meno.