Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema ripristina le limitazioni alle richieste di asilo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-13.

Supreme Court

«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.

Aug 26 2019      Application (19A230) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Aug 27 2019      Response to application (19A230) requested by Justice Kagan, due Wednesday, September 4, 2019, by 3 p.m.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Arizona, et al.

Sep 04 2019       Response to application from respondents East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. filed.

Sep 04 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations and Law School Clinics.

Sep 06 2019       Reply of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 10 2019       Supplemental brief of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 11 2019       Letter of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. received.

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.

Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.

Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.

Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.

Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»

«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»

«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»

«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»

«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»

«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»

«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»

* * * * * * *


 Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (09/11/2019)

«SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 19A230.

 The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the peti­tion, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»

*


Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide. [2019-08-26]

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.

A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.

“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.

The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.

The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.

Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.

In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”

The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.

*


Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


Usa: Corte suprema, ok a limiti asilo

Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Il Pentagono stanzia i fondi per il muro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-05.

Washington. White House. 001

Se i liberal democratici fossero stati di accordo, ci si sarebbe lecitamente domandato cosa di losco ci fosse sotto.

*

«The Trump administration secured a major win in July after the Supreme Court lifted a spending freeze on money for the wall.»

*

«The US Defense Department has greenlit $3.6 billion to build a controversial wall on the border with Mexico. The money is being diverted from existing military projects»

«US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall with Mexico moved forward on Tuesday, with the Pentagon approving billions to construct 175 miles (282 kilometers) of the border »

«Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved $3.6 billion (€3.28 billion), diverting the money from 127 current military projects both inside and outside the US»

«Esper said that the border wall projects “are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency,”»

«The move puts lawmakers who blocked Trump’s wall funding in a difficult position, as they must now decide if they will refund the projects that are being used to channel money to the wall»

* * * * * * *

Così, alla fin fine, Mr Trump è riuscito a mantenere anche questa promessa.

«The Pentagon’s decision to approve the wall funds, and to pull that money from existing military projects sparked the ire of the opposition Democrats.»

Le lamentose doglie dei liberal democratici sono la evidente prova di quanto Mr Trump stia operano per il bene degli Stati Uniti.


Pentagon approves billions to build Trump’s border wall with Mexico

The US Defense Department has greenlit $3.6 billion to build a controversial wall on the border with Mexico. The money is being diverted from existing military projects, sparking criticism from Democrats.

US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall with Mexico moved forward on Tuesday, with the Pentagon approving billions to construct 175 miles (282 kilometers) of the border.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved $3.6 billion (€3.28 billion), diverting the money from 127 current military projects both inside and outside the US.

The money is being diverted from 127 current military projects both inside and outside of the US.

Esper said that the border wall projects “are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency,” CNN reported, citing a letter sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Trump declared a “national emergency” in February at the US southern border after lawmakers in Congress refused to approve the $5.7 billion Trump had demanded to the long-promised barrier.

Wall funds ‘slap in the face’ to military

The Pentagon’s decision to approve the wall funds, and to pull that money from existing military projects sparked the ire of the opposition Democrats.

“It is a slap in the face to the members of the armed forces who serve our country that President Trump is willing to cannibalize already allocated military funding to boost his own ego and for a wall he promised Mexico would pay to build,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

“Congress will strongly oppose any funds for new wall construction,” he added.

The move puts lawmakers who blocked Trump’s wall funding in a difficult position, as they must now decide if they will refund the projects that are being used to channel money to the wall.

The Trump administration secured a major win in July after the Supreme Court lifted a spending freeze on money for the wall. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it would challenge the latest wall funding attempt in court.

Pubblicato in: Brasile, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

G7 Biarritz. Un primo resoconto. Evitati i temi caldi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-25.

_2018-06-10__G7__001

A Frau Merkel sono scappati i pruriti di protagonismo. È eluita nel nulla.


Questo potrebbe essere l’ultimo G7 a cui il mondo deve assistere sconcertato ed impotente.

«Larry Kudlow, aveva accusato la Francia di aver “deciso di abbandonare il comunicato finale basato sul consenso e le proposte concrete” e di volere che “il G7 stia zitto su queste questioni economiche fondamentali”»

«Dov’è l’azione sulla crescita, il commercio, la sicurezza energetica o l’occupazione?»

«Sulla questione del comunicato finale, che non ci sarà per la prima volta in 45 anni»

«la Francia guiderà ‘coalizioni’ di ‘chiunque condivida i nostri valori”, coalizioni che “producono banalità politicamente corrette come appelli a bandire tutto, dalle cannucce ai combustibili fossili”.»

«in agenda G7 nulla su crescita, commercio e occupazione»

«Donald Trump che ha nuovamente minacciato di imporre tariffe sui vini francesi in risposta alla digital tax sulle grandi aziende tecnologiche americane approvata da Parigi …. Qualche ora prima, la minaccia di dazi sui vini francesi aveva portato il presidente del Consiglio europeo, Donald Tusk, ad avvertire: “Proteggerò il vino francese con sincera determinazione, se gli Stati Uniti imporranno delle tasse, l’Ue risponderà sullo stesso piano”»

* * * * * * *

Ma tra gli argomenti che spiccano per non essere stati nemmeno trattati figurano il ‘clima’, il gender, lgbt, il problema della recessione economica.

«To avoid a repetition of what happened at the last summit in Canada, in which Trump refused to sign the final communique with the conclusions he had agreed with, Emmanuel Macron decided to dispense with the usual final document containing the conclusions of the summit. ‘These are communiques that no one reads and that result from endless bureaucratic conflicts,’ he said.»

Nota.

Frau Merkel sembrerebbe essere inesistente.

* * *


G7, prove d’intesa su Amazzonia e dazi. Johnson a Ue: Brexit senza backstop o no deal

Il presidente Usa ha minacciato nuove tariffe sui vini francesi in risposta alla digital tax sulle grandi aziende tecnologiche, poi il faccia a faccia con Macron e l’ipotesi di un invito per la Russia al G7 2020. Oggi l’incontro tra Tusk e il premier britannico.

Amazzonia, dazi e Brexit.

Sono tanti i temi caldi sul tavolo del G7 di Biarritz (FOTO), con il presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump che ha nuovamente minacciato di imporre tariffe sui vini francesi in risposta alla digital tax sulle grandi aziende tecnologiche americane approvata da Parigi. Una tensione, questa, stemperata poi dall’incontro privato che lo stesso Trump e Macron hanno avuto nella serata di sabato. Oggi anche l’incontro tra Donald Tusk e Boris Johnson, che chiede all’Ue di eliminare il backstop sull’Irlanda per evitare un divorzio segnato da un no deal. (L’INCONTRO TRA TRUMP E JOHNSON AL G7 – LE FIRST LADY DEL G7 – I LEADER MONDIALI COME GLI AVENGERS: IL VIDEO PARODIA)

La ricetta economica di Trump.

Ed è stato lo stesso presidente americano a sottolineare un rasserenamento nei rapporti con Macron: “Il pranzo che ho avuto con Emmanuel è stato finora il miglior incontro avuto. Allo stesso modo l’incontro serale con i leader del mondo è andato molto bene. Si stanno facendo progressi!”, ha spiegato su Twitter. “La Francia e il presidente Emmanuel Macron hanno fatto un vero grande lavoro finora con un G7 molto importante”, ha aggiunto Trump, sottolineando poi che “la nostra grande economia è il discorso di tutti”: il tycoon, al G7, vuole promuovere la crescita economica basata sulla sua ricetta di taglio delle tasse e deregulation. Un clima di serenità quindi, che secondo il tycoon smentisce le notizie “false e inaccurate” sulle tensioni con gli altri Paesi del G7 e sui rischi di recessione negli Stati Uniti. “Prima che arrivassi in Francia – scrive Trump – notizie false e disgustose sostenevano che le relazioni con gli altri sei Paesi del G7 fossero molto tese e che i due giorni di incontri sarebbero stati in disastro”. Allo stesso modo, prosegue, le fake news “stanno cercando di convincerci di una recessione, stanno tentando di spingere l’America verso tempi economici difficili, tanto peggio, tanto meglio, tutto pur di rendere la mia rielezione più difficile”.

La tensione sui dazi.

Qualche ora prima, la minaccia di dazi sui vini francesi aveva portato il presidente del Consiglio europeo, Donald Tusk, ad avvertire: “Proteggerò il vino francese con sincera determinazione, se gli Stati Uniti imporranno delle tasse, l’Ue risponderà sullo stesso piano”. Poco dopo, lo stesso Macron aveva rincarato la dose affermando che “le tensioni commerciali sono negative per tutti”. Oggi, invece, interpellato su eventuali pressioni degli alleati nei suoi confronti affinché abbandoni la guerra dei dazi con la Cina, Trump ha risposto: “Penso che rispettino la guerra commerciale con la Cina”.

Trump: Russia potrebbe tornare nel 2020.

Trump è poi intervenuto anche sul tema della Russia, dicendo che è “certamente possibile” che Mosca sia invitata al G7 del 2020 che si terrà in America. Ma, si apprende da fonti diplomatiche, i leader del G7 sono concordi sul fatto che è troppo presto per pensare ad un ritorno della Russia (e quindi a un G8): “C’è un percorso di verifica da effettuare, da qui alla fine dell’anno”. Mosca, dal canto suo, ha fatto sapere che esaminerà un eventuale invito a Vladimir Putin per il summit G7 del 2020. “Il presidente Putin – ha affermato il portavoce del Cremlino, Dmitri Peskov, citato dalla testata online Sputnik – in una conferenza stampa ha già risposto: se arriva” l’invito “certamente lo prenderemo in considerazione”.

Kudlow: in agenda G7 nulla su crescita, commercio e occupazione.

Intanto, sul Wall Street Journal il consigliere economico della Casa Bianca, Larry Kudlow, aveva accusato la Francia di aver “deciso di abbandonare il comunicato finale basato sul consenso e le proposte concrete” e di volere che “il G7 stia zitto su queste questioni economiche fondamentali”. Kudlow aveva osservato che i leader del summit avrebbero dovuto prendere esempio dall’amministrazione Trump per la crescita e che “ciò che più colpisce dell’agenda di quest’anno è ciò che manca”. “Dov’è l’azione sulla crescita, il commercio, la sicurezza energetica o l’occupazione?”, aveva scritto Kudlow. E sulla questione del comunicato finale, che non ci sarà per la prima volta in 45 anni, aveva attaccato: “Invece del consenso, la Francia guiderà ‘coalizioni’ di ‘chiunque condivida i nostri valori”, coalizioni che “producono banalità politicamente corrette come appelli a bandire tutto, dalle cannucce ai combustibili fossili”.

Al-Sisi a Conte: l’impegno sul caso Regeni continua.

Intanto ieri, al G7, si è svolto il bilaterale tra il presidente del Consiglio Giuseppe Conte e il presidente egiziano, Abdel Fattah al Sisi, che ha ribadito l’impegno “a continuare gli sforzi per scoprire le circostanze” della morte del ricercatore italiano Giulio Regeni “e portare i responsabili davanti alla giustizia”.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Pil Q2 +2.1%, contro il +1.8% previsto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-28.

2019-07-28__Usa_Pil__001

Il Bureau of Economic Analysis ha rilasciato i dati trimestrali del pil americano.

l Prodotto Interno Lordo (PIL) è la misura più ampia di attività economica ed è un indicatore chiave dello stato di salute di un’economia.

La variazione annualizzata (variazione trimestrale x 4) in percentuale del PIL mostra il tasso di crescita dell’economia nel suo complesso.

Il consumo è di gran lunga la maggiore componente del PIL degli Stati Uniti ed ha il maggiore impatto su di esso.

Su base trimestrale i dati possono essere molto volatili.

Dati superiori al previsto devono essere interpretati come positivi/rialzisti per il dollaro USA (USD), mentre valori inferiori alle attese sono da interpretarsi in senso negativo/ribassista per il dollaro USA.

2019-07-28__Usa_Pil__002

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Supreme Court da ragione a Mr Trump sul muro al confine con il Messico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-28.

2019-07-28__Trump__001

Supreme Court. Sentenza 588. 2019.

Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Sierra Club, Et Al. On Application For Stay

«The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to ob­tain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Sec­tion 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the peti­tion for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall termi­nate when the Court enters its judgment ….

This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions ….»

* * * * * * *

Il quesito posto è esponibile in poche parole.

Una corte, ancorché federale e di rango inferiore, può sentenziare erga omnes bloccando un’azione politica del Governo legalmente in carica?

Se è vero che per la divisione dei poteri la politica non dovrebbe intervenire nelle sentenze della magistratura, sarebbe altrettanto vero che la magistratura non dovrebbe emettere sentenze politiche e giustificate con ragionamenti politici.

* * * * * * *


Supreme Court will allow Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections Mexico border wall

« – The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

– The Supreme Court said Friday that it would lift a freeze on the money put in place by a lower court.

– The Supreme Court’s action means the Trump administration can tap the funds and begin work on four contracts it has awarded.

– Four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start. »

* * *


US judge blocks funds for Trump border wall plan

«A US federal judge has temporarily blocked the use of defence department funds to build a border wall between the US and Mexico.

The judge granted the injunction to block the use of $1bn (£786m) in Arizona and Texas because it had not been approved by Congress.

President Donald Trump declared an emergency earlier this year, saying he needed $6.7bn to build the wall as a matter of national security.

It was a major campaign promise.

About 20 states, along with groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed lawsuits to try to stop the president using the emergency declaration to bypass Congress.»

* * *


Supreme Court Lets Trump Proceed on Border Wall

«The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction»


Supreme court allows Trump to use $2.5bn in Pentagon funds for border wall

«Move allows administration to redirect money despite lawmakers’ refusal to provide funding

The US supreme court cleared the way for Donald Trump to use billions in Pentagon funds to build a border wall.

The decision allows the Trump administration to redirect approximately $2.5bn approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.

The Trump administration planned to use the $2.5bn on four contracts to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

The supreme court’s five conservative justices agreed to block a ruling in lower courts that barred Trump from spending the money on the wall contracts on the basis that Congress did not specifically authorize the funds to be used that way. The court’s four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.»


Supreme Court temporarily grants Trump funds for border wall

«The US Supreme Court temporarily ruled that President Donald Trump could use military funds to build a portion of a wall along the border of the United States and Mexico.

The court voted 5-4 to suspend a California federal judge’s order to block the use of $2.5 billion (€2.2 billion) in military funds for a wall he promised to build during his campaign.

The US president celebrated the court’s order, tweeting: “Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall… Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!” ….»


Ansa. 2019-07-27. Ok Corte Suprema a Trump su fondi Muro

La Corte Suprema regala un’importante vittoria a Donald Trump. Il presidente può usare i fondi del Pentagono, circa 2,5 miliardi di dollari, per la costruzione di circa 160,9 chilometri di muro al confine con il Messico mentre la battaglia aperta nei vari tribunali americani continua. Contrari al via libera i quattro giudici liberal. I saggi hanno ribaltato la decisione della Corte d’Appello del Nono Circuito, che si era schierata con il Sierra Club e  una coalizione di comunità al confine nel definire in violazione della legge l’appropriazione di fondi dal Dipartimento della Difesa per la costruzione del muro. Secondo la Corte Suprema il governo ha mostrato “sufficienti” prove sul fatto che non ci sono le basi per bloccare il trasferimento di fondi.  Trump non nasconde la sua soddisfazione per la decisione.
“Wow! Una grande vittoria sul muro e per la sicurezza al confine” twitta pochi minuti dopo la decisione. Il presidente ha dichiarato lo scorso febbraio l’emergenza nazionale al confine con il Messico dopo due mesi di battaglia con il Congresso, che si sono tradotti nello shutdown più lungo della storia americana. Un’emergenza con la quale ha rivendicato di poter usare fondi di altre agenzie governative per la costruzione del muro. Un annuncio seguito immediatamente da azioni legali, anche da parte della Camera. Un tentativo questo fallito, con il giudice Trevor McFadden che aveva messo l’accento sul fatto che i tribunali possono risolvere le dispute fra il potere esecutivo e quello legislativo solo come ultima risorsa. “Il Congresso ha diverse armi politiche per far fronte alle percepite minacce alla sua sfera di potere”, incluse leggi che “limitano espressamente il trasferimento o la spesa di fondi per il muro” aveva scritto McFadden. Nella documentazione presentata alla Corte Suprema sui fondi per il muro, i legali della Camera hanno osservato come in base alla Costituzione “un immenso muro lungo il confine semplicemente non può essere costruito senza fondi approvati dal Congresso a tale scopo”.

*


Cnn. 2019-07-27. Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense to construct parts of a wall along the southwestern border that the government argues is necessary to protect national security.

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

In a brief order, the court said that it was ruling in favor of the Trump administration before the litigation has played out because the government had made a “sufficient showing” that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case.

Three members of the liberal wing of the court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — wrote they would have blocked the funds for now. The fourth member, Justice Stephen Breyer, wrote separately to say that he would have allowed the government to use the funds to finalize the terms for contractors but block the funds from being used for the actual construction.

The Supreme Court’s order is a significant win for Trump, who is likely to use the construction of a wall as a major talking point on the campaign trail. The President celebrated the decision in a tweet Friday evening.

“The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed,” the President tweeted. “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

The decision overrules a lower court decision that had blocked the transfer of funds while appeals played out. A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the use of the funds earlier in the month, holding that the challengers were likely to prevail in their case because the use of the funds “violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress.”

The order comes after Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown in February when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.

The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund. The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as “reprogramming.” The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers.

Many lawmakers slammed the decision to move the money away from those national security priorities, threatening to strip the Pentagon of its ability to move money around, something the Defense Department has acknowledged would be detrimental.

“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich told CNN.

Lawyers for the government had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and unblock the use of the funds while legal challenges proceed in the lower courts.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted in court papers that the projects needed to start because the funds at issue “will no longer remain available for obligation after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2019.” He said that the funds are necessary to permit the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing in areas the government has identified as “drug-smuggling corridors” where it has seized “thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine” in recent years.

“Respondents’ interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border,” Francisco argued in the papers, regarding the challenge from environmental groups.

Legal expert Joshua Matz said the decision is a major victory for Trump.

“But the Court did not signal that Trump followed the law. Instead, the majority took a narrow view of who, if anybody, is allowed to challenge Trump’s decision in court,” he said.

It is a loss for critics, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition that argued the administration had illegally transferred the funds after Congress denied requests for more money to construct the wall. The groups argued the wall — in areas in Arizona, California and New Mexico — would harm the environment.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the groups, argued in court papers against a stay of the lower court ruling, fearful of the wall’s impact on border communities.

“Issuance of a stay that would permit Defendants to immediately spend this money is not consistent with Congress’s power over the purse or with the tacit assessment by Congress that the spending would not be in the public interest,”ACLU lawyers told the court.

The ACLU slammed the decision after it was released Friday evening.

“This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.

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

California. È comparsa la parola ‘secessione’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-13.

Macbeth__011

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

«Secession is extremely improbable»

*

«Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years»

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

* * * * * * *

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

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

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

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


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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration haven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pubblicato in: Demografia, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump e Census. Non è uomo da darsi per sconfitto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-10.

White House Animal 001

La Suprema Corte ha rinviato la sentenza sul Census, richiedendo ulteriori chiarimenti.

Il problema è se sia costituzionale o meno che alle elezioni presidenziali votino anche gli immigrati clandestini come se fossero cittadini americani.

Mr Trump però non è uomo che si rassegni.

A giudicare da quanto i liberal democratici lo odino e lo temano si direbbe proprio che sia un grande presidente.

*

Trump presses for contentious census citizenship question despite legal uncertainty

«The Trump administration on Friday refused to back down over its bid to put a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census, meaning a court case will move forward over whether officials were motivated by racial bias in seeking to add it.»

*

U.S. Justice Department still pondering census citizenship move: court filing

«The U.S. Justice Department is still considering how to proceed on an effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census, according to court papers filed on Friday.»

*

Trump considering executive order for Census citizenship question

«President Donald Trump said on Friday that he is considering an executive order to add a contentious question about citizenship to the 2020 U.S. Census, after a U.S. Supreme Court blocked his initial effort to include it.»

*

White House considering ‘every option’ for adding citizenship question to census

«With a court deadline looming, the Trump administration is looking at “every option” as it seeks to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.»

*

Trump mulling executive order on citizenship question in Census: Axios

«U.S. President Donald Trump is considering issuing an executive order on including a citizenship question in the U.S. census, Axios reported on Thursday.

“The administration is considering the appropriateness of an executive order that would address the constitutional need for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census,” the news outlet reported a senior legal source as saying»

*

New U.S. census turmoil as Trump again pursues citizenship question

«President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was moving ahead with adding a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census in a dramatic reversal after his own administration including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced a day earlier that the plan had been dropped.»

*

DOJ says new legal team will take over census case

«The Justice Department announced Sunday night a new legal team will take over the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The department’s spokesperson said in a statement that the DOJ is “shifting these matters to a new team of Civil Division lawyers” and it will be revealed in filings Monday.

The spokesperson did not give a reason for the change. Officials within the Civil Division’s Federal Programs Branch had been lead on the census case up until now, but they are being replaced by a combination of career and political officials from the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, a Justice official said.»

*

Trump Is Bringing In New Lawyers On The Citizenship Question Case And No One Knows What’s Happening

«In a surprising move, lawyers from the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch are taking over the census litigation from a DOJ team that specializes in cases against agencies.

The legal fight over the Trump administration’s effort to put a citizenship question on the 2020 Census took another surprising turn Monday, as the Justice Department revealed the new team of lawyers suddenly being subbed in.

The staffing change represents the latest twist since the administration revealed on July 3 that it was still looking for ways to include the citizenship question — notwithstanding statements just a day earlier by the Justice Department and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the administration was dropping the question.»

*

Barr says DOJ has a new way to get the citizenship question on the census

«Attorney General William Barr said Monday that the Justice Department has a new legal strategy for adding a question about citizenship status onto the 2020 census, according to a new report.

“I think over the next day or two you’ll see what approach we’re taking,” Barr told reporters in South Carolina. “And I think it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census.”

The attempt by the Justice and Commerce departments to add the question was struck down by a recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision

* * * * * * * * * * *

Nessuno è in grado ad oggi di predire con ragionevole certezza come andranno a finire le cose.

Di certo, questa devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal democratica è combattuta e dolorosa, ma il loro impero sta sgretolandosi.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Trump

Trump e le previsioni elettorali smentite dai fatti. La storia si ripete.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-19.

Tricoteuse 002

Alle elezioni presidenziali del 2016 Mr Trump seppe conquistarsi 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Fu una vittoria strepitosa, anche se ragionando in termini percentuali lui aveva ottenuto il 46.1% dei suffragi contro il 48.2% della sua avversaria.

Sembrerebbe quasi che nessuno sappia come negli Stati Uniti si voti da due secoli e mezzo.

Tutti i media lo avevano deriso, quasi fosse stato un mero velleitario. Tutte le proiezioni elettorali lo davano concordemente per sonoramente sconfitto. Non ci fu un commentatore politico, di quelli da un milione di dollari al mese, che avesse parlato bene di Mr Trump. Si sviluppò anche una campagna elettorale anomala: più che concentrarsi sui problemi politici ed economici, i liberal democratici iniziarono ad attaccarlo in prima persona, dal colore dei capelli a sua moglie Melania, alla sua famiglia, arrivando al punto di denigrare il figlio allora di otto anni.

Eppure Mr Trump vinse, ed alla grande.

Mr Trump aveva impostato la campagna elettorale sui problemi politici ed economici della gente comune ed aveva anche promesso l’abbattimento delle tasse. Mrs Clinton, invece, aveva impostato la propria campagna sui problemi etici e morali, proposti nella visione dell’ideologia liberal democratica. Il giudizio lo dettero gli Elettori.

*

I risultati di quelle elezioni presidenziali portarono in primo piano un problema che affligge adesso tutto l’occidente.

Sia la base degli iscritti ai partiti, quelli che poi ne votano la dirigenza, sia gli eletti e la dirigenza in senso lato, sembrerebbero essere del tutto avulsi dalla realtà dei propri Elettori, che alla fine voltano loro le spalle. Casi lampanti son quello di Mrs May e del partito conservatore inglese, dei socialisti francesi ridotti al 6%, della disintegrazione della cdu e della spd in Germania, delle continue débâcle elettorali del partito democratico in Italia, per non parlare poi della cesura che corre tra attivisti ed Elettorato per il M5S.

Tratto caratteristico è che nessuna di quelle formazioni politiche sembrerebbe essere in grado di imparare dai propri errori.

I partiti politici si trovano ad un bivio senza alternative: o propongono le proprie ideologie essendo ben consci di perdere gran parte dei consensi, scelta coerente e comprensibile, oppure devono ritornare a sentire cosa dicono e vogliono gli Elettori, mettendo a tacere o allontanando gli iscritti che non la hanno ancora capita.

*

La Bbc pubblica ora un articolo che cerca di ricostruire gli eventi dell’epoca in cui Mr Trump si era presentato come candidato.

Sembrerebbe essere di grande interesse attuale, perché sembrerebbe proprio che i democratici stiano rifacendo gli errori passati, che li portarono al disastro.

«When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win»

«The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.»

«If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation»

«Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border»

* * * * * * *

Poniamo quindi una domanda.

Perché si dovrebbe continuare a fidarsi di ambienti e società di sondaggi elettorali che da quattro anni a questa parte non ne azzeccano una nemmeno per sbaglio?


Bbc. 2019-06-15. The day Trump ran for president (and what people predicted)

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

——-

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

How does that view look now?

“Donald Trump got people to take notice all right, but I never thought someone with negative ratings as high as his could capture the nomination,” Anthony writes in 2019. “I figured the Republican establishment would coalesce around an alternative – and it never really did.

“There’s a theory that Trump’s presidential campaign was a publicity stunt gone awry, a real-life version of The Producers, where an enterprise designed to fail became an accidental success.

“Only Mr Trump knows the truth, but his pugilistic brand of politics capitalised on a moment in American history when just enough voters were fed up with the status quo to take a chance on an unlikely outsider.”

——-

‘Much-needed seriousness’ – Democrats

What they said in 2015

“Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days,” Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement that proceeded to lay on the sarcasm in spades.

“He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

How does that view look now?

Neither the DNC nor Holly Shulman responded when asked how they viewed those comments now.

——-

Trump may have an opening – Washington Examiner

What they said in 2015

Days before Mr Trump’s announcement, Byron York wrote in the conservative Washington Examiner that the mogul could appeal to Republican voters tired with the direction the party was taking.

“It’s been clear for quite a while that some conservative voters are so disgusted with the GOP that they would entertain the notion of a third party,” he wrote.

“If he pursues a race seriously, Trump could win the support of those I’ve-had-it-up-to-my-eyeballs voters. Their concerns aren’t a joke. If Trump doesn’t address them, somebody else will.”

How does that view look now?

The fact Mr Trump was not an establishment politician, and could shake up the system, was a factor his supporters went on to regularly cite for why they loved him.

Here’s what some of his supporters told us in summer 2016:

Four years on, there is no question that the Republican Party has been shaped in the image of the man who led it to the White House: more hardline and more aggressive.

Former Ohio governor John Kasich, who was the last Republican candidate standing alongside Mr Trump in 2016, said in May that it was now the Trump party. “Ninety percent of the Republican Party supports him,” he told CNN.

——-

All eyes on the primaries – New York Times

What they said in 2015

Correspondent Maggie Haberman predicted Mr Trump’s campaign would end with him not winning the nomination (and instead earning a nice fat cheque for the next season of The Apprentice).

But she also anticipated intriguing times ahead in the crucial early states in the Republican primary race.

“He would likely have to somehow outperform both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida, where he is a part-time resident,” she wrote. “If Mr Trump could buy a state with an early nominating contest, like New Hampshire, and brand it with his name, it might help.”

Anyone suggesting Mr Trump could win a primary at this stage was… a lone voice, shall we say.

How does that view look now?

Well, The Apprentice did return, but Mr Trump was a bit too busy to host it by that point.

As far as the primary race was concerned, Maggie Haberman was right – his win in New Hampshire in the second primary gave him a critical boost.

After that, he didn’t look back. And by the time of the Florida primary in March 2016, his momentum did help him outperform Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush (who had by that point withdrawn from the race) – Mr Trump won 45.7% of the vote there.

——-

Trump could dominate debate – Washington Post

What they said in 2015

Trump the performer could take up all the oxygen of the other candidates, predicted Chris Cillizza, now of CNN.

He will interrupt, bully and seek to dominate the debate in ways that will make it impossible to get a word in edge-wise,” he wrote. “And, if past is prologue, the sorts of things he does say when he gains control of the debate floor will be stuff that appeals heavily to the Republican base and turns off, well, almost everyone else…

“While it’s possible Trump’s poll numbers collapse between now and August, that doesn’t seem very likely since much of how you perform in national polling at this point is a function of pure name recognition, and Trump has plenty of that.”

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

——-

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

Trump’s ‘pretty sexy’ message – Fox News

What he said in 2015

Republican media strategist Adam Goodman predicted Mr Trump’s status as an outsider billionaire who was “unashamed” about his wealth could prove attractive to voters.

Appearing on conservative channel Fox News on the day of Mr Trump’s announcement, he told broadcaster Gregg Jarrett that Mr Trump was “talking to the disaffected” American.

In prescient comments, he discussed how Mr Trump’s “America First” platform would appeal to those voters.

“In a way he’s sending a signal to a lot of Americans who are not making it, which is: ‘Put me in place, and I will make sure America’s brand is back on top again’. ‘I will make sure that when I am president of the United States, I will do everything I can to put you first, and allow you the opportunities I had to make it and fulfil the American dream.’

“That’s a pretty sexy message for anyone to hear.”

How does that view look now?

Four years on, Mr Goodman maintains he “felt something” when watching Mr Trump declare his candidacy for the Republican ticket. He tells the BBC he stands by the comments he made on Fox News.

Mr Trump’s “America First” message, Mr Goodman says, was “code” to disenfranchised Americans who felt the system had “let them down”.

The “sexy message” he described on Fox News gave Americans “something to feel good about in a pro-America way”.

“Donald Trump, for all of his faults, certainly brought that message. Unashamedly and unedited,” Mr Goodman says. “Trump reflected what was in people.”

Has Trump delivered on his promises?

Neither Mr Trump nor his nationalistic platform have changed since then, Mr Goodman says.

“Trump today is the same as candidate Trump in 2015,” he says. In the 2020 presidential election, Mr Goodman predicts Mr Trump will leave a “lot of people scratching their heads again”.

——-

Jeb Bush would win the nomination – Polls

What they said in 2015

On the day Mr Trump entered the race, polling data painted a fairly bleak picture for him. He was languishing towards the bottom of the pack with 3.6% of support, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls.

Leading the field on 10.8% was former Florida governor Jeb Bush, ahead of Wisconsin’s then-governor Scott Walker (yes, really).

Mr Trump’s average in the polls would dip to 3.2% on 22 June 2015, but that would prove to be his lowest ebb. From that point onwards, his rise was meteoric.

His approval rating spiked on 12 July 2015, when he accused Mexicans of “killing us at the border” at a mass rally in Phoenix.

Eight days later, he overtook Mr Bush, his polling average climbing to 16.8%. After that, only Ben Carson would surpass him – once on 5 November 2015 – until his nomination was confirmed.

What do the polls say now?

It’s only the Democrats picking a candidate this time around and so far, their race has been dominated by one name: former US Vice-President Joe Biden.

He has been the runaway leader for the nomination, even before entering the race on 25 April this year. As of 12 June, his polling average, according to RealClearPolitics, puts him top at 32.8%.

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is his closest competitor on 17.3%, while the rest of the pack – including Elizabeth Warren (9.2%), Pete Buttigieg (7.2%) and Kamala Harris (7.2%) – trail in single digits.

Those ratings are likely to fluctuate as candidates lock horns in Democratic primary debates starting on 26 June. As Mr Trump’s unexpected ascendancy in the 2016 race shows though, it’s still too early to make any sensible predictions…

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Trump

KKR vorrebbe comprare da Springer Business Insider Bild e Politico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-18.

2019-06-14__KKR__001

KKR, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, è una società di investimenti globali, con un total assets di circa 40 miliardi Usd.

Come tutte le persone di mondo, per sopravvivere versano generosi contributi ai partiti politici.

2019-06-14__KKR__002

Nel 2016 hanno elargito 2,654,443 dollari ai partiti politici: 329,223 Usd ai democratici e 1,642,869 Usd ai repubblicani.

Diciamo pure che dai finanziamenti effettuati ben si comprende l’orientamento politico.

*

«US private equity giant KKR wants to take the owner of Business Insider private in a deal that values the European publishing company at nearly $8 billion»

«KKR on Wednesday offered investors in Axel Springer €63 ($71.40) per share in a deal that has support from the company’s largest shareholder»

«The offer values the Berlin-based company at €6.8 billion ($7.7 billion).»

«The price is a 12.5% premium over Tuesday’s close and an increase of nearly 40% from late May, when talks between the companies were first reported»

«Axel Springer …. owns a range of publications, including top German tabloid newspaper Bild and the web site Business Insider»

«Axel Spring said tougher economic conditions and the introduction of a digital tax in France forced the company to change its forecast»

«Springer, the widow of founder Axel Springer and owner of 42% of the company, said in a statement that partnering with KKR would allow for new investments»

«In February, it bought Tele München Group, one of Germany’s largest television production companies»

* * * * * * *

Vi sarebbero almeno due elementi da prendere in considerazione.

In primo luogo, si deve nuovamente constatare la carenza di fondi per investimenti industriali in Germania, fatto questo che obbliga alla fine alla vendita delle attività per carenza di investimenti. La Germania sta liquidando gran parte dei gioielli di famiglia.

In secondo luogo, si prende atto di quanto sia vasta l’operazione lanciata dai repubblicano per acquisire le principali testate mondiali, al fine poi di trasformarle lentamente da liberal in organi di stampa ed informazione amici.

* * * * * * *

È una operazione di vastissimo raggio che per il momento ha comportato investimenti per oltre i duecento miliardi di dollari.


Cnn. 2019-06-12. KKR is buying the publisher of Business Insider and Bild in a $7.7 billion deal

US private equity giant KKR wants to take the owner of Business Insider private in a deal that values the European publishing company at nearly $8 billion.

KKR (KKR) on Wednesday offered investors in Axel Springer €63 ($71.40) per share in a deal that has support from the company’s largest shareholder, Friede Springer, and CEO Mathias Döpfner.

The offer values the Berlin-based company at €6.8 billion ($7.7 billion). The price is a 12.5% premium over Tuesday’s close and an increase of nearly 40% from late May, when talks between the companies were first reported.

Axel Springer, which owns a range of publications, including top German tabloid newspaper Bild and the website Business Insider, has been under intense pressure from investors in recent months.

The publisher said Wednesday that it expects revenue for the current financial year to decline “in the low single-digit percentage range.” It also expects profit to fall.

Axel Spring said tougher economic conditions and the introduction of a digital tax in France forced the company to change its forecast.

Springer, the widow of founder Axel Springer and owner of 42% of the company, said in a statement that partnering with KKR would allow for new investments.

“Our journalistic principles and our corporate culture remain the foundation on which we build and in which we trust,” she said. “KKR would be a good partner who sees this the same way.”

Döpfner, the CEO, said in a statement that going private will allow the publisher to shift its focus away from short-term financial targets. He plans new investments in people, products, technology and brands.

Berenberg analyst Sarah Simon said in a research note that going private could increase Axel Springer’s flexibility, especially if it seeks to acquire more classifieds businesses, such as parts of eBay. EBay said in March it is considering a spinoff of its classifieds business.

“We believe that management is taking the right approach: indeed, we believe that additional spending is crucial to the long-term future of the business,” Simon wrote.

Axel Springer also operates a 50-50 joint venture that publishes the European edition of Politico.

KKR is no stranger to media investments. In February, it bought Tele München Group, one of Germany’s largest television production companies.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump, Supreme Court, Census e strilli dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-16.

Supreme Court

Entro fine giugno la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti si pronuncerà se il Census possa o meno richiedere la nazionalità.

Trump, Lib Dem, Suprema Corte e Census. Un duello all’ultimo sangue.

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Corte Suprema. Il 23 aprile primo pronunciamento sulla costituzionalità del Census.

Supreme Court e Census. – Il punto di vista dei liberal democratici.

*

Riassumiamo.

Il problema se il Census possa o meno chiedere agli intervistati di quale cittadinanza godano sottende una conseguenza gravida di ricadute.

A rigor di termini potrebbe votare nelle elezioni federali o statali solo ed esclusivamente chi abbia cittadinanza statunitense.

Se così fosse, i liberal democratici che fanno votare gli immigrati illegali, perderebbero un numero di voti stimabile trai sei milioni e mezzo nel caso più restrittivo, fino a valutazioni di oltre sedici milioni.

Non solo.

Sulla base dei dati censuali si ripartiscono i deputati che spettano ai singoli stati: la California ed altri stati liberal si troverebbe con un numero di congressisti dimezzato.

Per finire, i fondi federali, una gran parte, è ripartita tra gli stati i base ai dati censuali.

*

I liberal democratici stanno schiumando rabbia impotente: Mr Trump li sta massacrando ogni giorno che passa, tagliando loro le una volta rigogliose fonti di denari pubblici.

Con Mr Trump anche i liberal democratci dovranno lavorare per vivere.

«The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.»

Ma non si rassegnano.

Stanno provando già su questa terra quelle che saranno le pene infernali nell’aldilà.


Reuters. 2019-06-04. Trump administration denies deceit in census citizenship fight

The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.

In a letter to Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who in January blocked the citizenship question from being used on the decennial census, the government called the allegations an “eleventh-hour campaign to improperly derail the Supreme Court’s resolution of the government’s appeal.”

The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to issue a ruling by the end of June on whether the question can be added in time for next year’s census.

Furman has scheduled a hearing into the new controversy for Wednesday.

Several immigrant advocacy groups, among the plaintiffs in the case, submitted a filing to the Manhattan federal court on May 30 saying that during the course of their lawsuit the administration hid the fact that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican specialist on drawing electoral districts, played a “significant role” in planning the citizenship question.

Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redistricting, the plaintiffs said.

Hofeller, who died in 2018, went on to ghostwrite a draft letter from the Department of Justice to the Department of Commerce, asking for a citizenship question on the grounds it would help enforce voting rights, according to the plaintiffs.

In Monday’s filing, the government said it did not rely on Hofeller’s work and said the plaintiffs were “conjuring a conspiracy theory involving a deceased political operative.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement: “This baseless attack on the integrity of the department and its employees is based on nothing more than fevered speculation.”

Opponents have said a citizenship question would cause a sizeable undercount by deterring immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the forms, out of fear the information would be shared with law enforcement.

Democrats, immigrant advocates and demographers say such an undercount could deprive some communities of funds and political representation because the Census determines how the federal government distributes aid, as well as seats in Congress.