Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Stati Uniti, Trump

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

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2047-09-26.

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__001

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

Ricordiamo come secondo Treccani la schizofrenia altro non sia che:

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

*

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

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

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

Diciamo pure che i liberal democratici proprio non sanno perdere.

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__002

*

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

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

*

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

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

Nota.

Si fa un gran dire che Mr Trump sarebbe impopolare.

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

2017-09-25__Trump_Deal__003


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch more above.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bergoglio, Putin e Trump hanno celebrato il Rosh Hashanah.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-24.

Candelabro Ebraico rosh-hashana

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

* * * * * * *

Bene.

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

*

SS Papa Franciscus I.

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

*

Il Presidente Putin.

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

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

*

Il Presidente Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

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


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

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

*

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

Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar: A great country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berel Lazar: Thank you, Mr President!


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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pubblicato in: Putin, Russia, Trump

Mikhail Kalashnikov. Mosca erige il monumento che i liberal avrebbero abbattuto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-20.

2017-09-21__ Kalashnikov__001

Volete capire chi siano i russi? Bene. Osservate la suola dello stivale. Sicuramente è stata pulita con cura, ma con altrettanta cura è stata pulita la strada ove marciare.


Il Kalashnikov AK-47 è un mito per il momento insuperato.

Preciso, potente, maneggevole, smontabile e rimontabile senza strumenti specifici, funzionante sia nei climi torridi sia in quelli artici, insensibile alla pioggia battente ed al fango, producibile a costi bassi.

Se è vero che Kalashnikov si ispirò allo Sturmgewehr 44 (Maschinenpistole 44, MP44), è altrettanto vero che il risultato finale fu un oggetto totalmente innovativo in ogni più piccolo particolare.

*

Questo è il video ufficiale della cerimonia di inaugurazione del monumento a Mikhail Kalashnikov, colui che ha progettato e costruito l’omonimo fucile di assalto. Presenti il Ministro della Cultura Vladimir Medinsky, il sindaco di Mosca Sergey Sobyanin, ufficiali dello Stato Maggiore russo, le Autorità religiose e molta folla. Il monumento è stato collocato all’incrocio tra le vie Sadovaya-Karetnaya e Dolgorukovskaya, in pieno centro.

*

«Nel centro di Mosca è stato inaugurato un monumento a Mikhail Kalashnikov, il più noto progettista di armi al mondo. Il monumento è stato aperto all’incrocio tra le vie Sadovaya-Karetnaya e Dolgorukovskaya. La cerimonia di apertura è stata presenziata dal Ministro della Cultura Vladimir Medinsky, che ha definito Kalashnikov “un marchio culturale”.

Medinsky ha espresso la speranza che la piazza, dove il monumento si trova, sarà amata dagli abitanti della capitale. “Mikhail Kalashnikov è l’incarnazione delle migliori caratteristiche umane russe. Il suo straordinario talento naturale, la semplicità, l’onestà e talento organizzativo gli hanno permesso di creare una vasta gamma di armi per difendere la Patria”, ha detto il capo del ministero della Cultura, definendo il Kalashnikov un “marchio culturale”.

La scultura di otto metri – che vede imbracciato un Kalashnikov AK-47 – è firmata dall’artista Salavat Shcherbakov. La composizione comprende anche le immagini di San Giorgio, il serpente colpito e un globo.» [Fonte]

*

Mr Putin è un patriota russo, che ben ne conosce e valorizza il retaggio religioso, storico, culturale, sociale ed anche militare della sua patria.

Occidente che muta. 01. Putin, Valdai e la Santa Pasqua.

Russia. Il trionfo della Tradizione. Putin e la religione.

Putin. Una personalità controversa. Una valutazione fortemente avversa.

Putin il Grande. Un intervento da statista.

Valdai. Mr Putin delinea la futura politica estera russa.

Russia, Putin inaugura statua di San Vladimiro il Grande [Video]

«Vladimir Putin ha inaugurato una statua gigante di San Vladimiro il Grande, uno dei leader della chiesa ortodossa russa. Il monumento di 17 metri installato vicino al Cremlino è stato duramente criticato perché rovinerebbe lo skyline del centro storico di Mosca e potrebbe compromettere lo status di Patrimonio dell’umanità dato dall’Unesco al Cremlino.

La cerimonia di inaugurazione della statua, fortemente voluta e sostenuta dalla Chiesa ortodossa, rientra nell’ondata di nazionalismo lanciata dopo l’annessione della Crimea alla Russia nel 2014 – oltre a celebrare implicitamente, data l’omonimia, anche il leader del Cremlino. “Il principe Vladimiro è noto nella storia per aver unificato e difeso le terre russe e come politico lungimirante”, ha dichiarato Putin nella giornata dell’Unità nazionale. “Oggi il nostro dovere è di restare uniti contro le sfide e le minacce moderne tenendo come base questa eredità spirituale”»

*

È cosa del tutto ovvia che l’Occidente liberal odi Mr Putin.

È la personalità che ha saputo far riprendere alla Russia il posto che le compete nel mondo come una del tre superpotenze, e questo sarebbe già sufficiente.

Ma mica basta.

Come prima detto e qui ribadito, Mr Putin un patriota russo, che ben ne conosce e valorizza il retaggio religioso, storico, culturale, sociale ed anche militare della sua patria: tutta una lunga serie di valori che sono esattamente l’opposto dell’ideologia liberal atea ed aborrente il proprio passato al punto tale che le statue dei suoi grandi le abbatte, non le pone in essere.

*

Ma molte cose stanno mutando.

Sia ben chiaro: né Mr Putin né Mr Trump sono degli stareti, ma le loro posizioni sono quasi sovrapponibili.

«As I stand here today before this incredible crowd, this faithful nation, we can still hear those voices that echo through history.  Their message is as true today as ever.  The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out “We want God.”»

Il Presidente Trump in visita a Varsavia ha pronunciato un discorso magistrale, “that echo through history“: “We want God.”.

Mr Trump e Mr Putin hanno molto più che li accomuna di quanto possa dividerli: poi, uno è americano e l’altro è russo, ed ovviamente ciascuno fa gli interessi della sua Patria. Sono avversari, non nemici.

Nota.

Il monumento a Kalashnikov è controverso esclusivamente sui media occidentali.

Il monumento che i media occidentali hanno definito “controverso” è stato contestato da una sola persona, ora affidata alla amorevole ospitalità della Stazione di Polizia Numero 29. Una persona non corrisponde a “tutto il popolo russo“.


The Moscow Times. 2017-09-19. Protester Detained at Kalashnikov Monument Unveiling

A lone protester was detained at the unveiling of a new seven-meter statue to the inventor of the AK-47 assault rifle in Moscow’s city center on Tuesday, the opposition-leaning Dozhd television channel reports.

The 35 million ruble ($538,000) monument to Mikhail Kalashnikov, installed earlier this week, was unveiled by Russia’s Culture Minister and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church near the Mayakovskaya metro station on Tuesday morning.

The demonstrator who was holding a sign reading “Designer of Weapons = Designer of Death,” told journalists at the scene he was “against any military demonstration and any propaganda of Russia’s military might.”

The man was soon detained by the police, who did not provide a reason for the detention, Dozhd reports.

The almost 8-meter tall gold statue depicts Kalashnikov brandishing his trademark assault rifle.

Salavat Shcherbakov, who designed the monument, is also responsible a controversial 2016 monument to Russia’s medieval Prince Vladimir just outside the Kremlin.



The Guardian. 2017-09-19. 30ft-high statue of Mikhail Kalashnikov unveiled in Moscow

Russian creator of the AK-47, used to kill an estimated 250,000 people a year, celebrated in controversial ceremony.

*

A statue of Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of the AK-47 assault rifle, has been unveiled in central Moscow in a controversial ceremony that merged military pomp with religious ritual.

The nine-metre (30ft) monument depicts Kalashnikov clutching his eponymous automatic weapon. Tuesday’s event was attended by high-ranking Russian officials including Sergey Sobyanin, the mayor of Moscow, and Vladimir Medinsky, the culture minister.

“This is Russia’s cultural brand,” said Medinsky, before a Russian Orthodox priest blessed the statue.

“He created this weapon to defend his motherland,” said Father Konstantin, shrugging off suggestions that it was inappropriate to sprinkle holy water on a statue of a weapons designer. Some members of the crowd crossed themselves as the priest blessed the monument.

A guard of honour from the Russian defence ministry stood to attention throughout the ceremony, which also featured second world war-era military songs.

“Our weapon is a holy weapon,’ Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, the former spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church, wrote on Facebook.

Kalashnikov, a tank commander, created the AK-47 after hearing Soviet soldiers complain about the quality of their weapons. The first model was produced in 1947, earning Kalashnikov the Stalin prize and the Order of the Red Star.

Today, there are reported to be more than 100m Kalashnikov rifles in use worldwide. The weapon, which is favoured by both armies and militants, is said to be responsible for 250,000 deaths annually. An AK-47 appears on the flags of Mozambique and Hezbollah, as well as on the coats of arms of Zimbabwe and East Timor.

The unveiling of the statue in the central Garden Ring neighbourhood took place despite the objections of some Muscovites, including nearby residents. A protester was detained by police as he attempted to unfurl a banner that read “a creator of weapons is a creator of death”.

The statue of Kalashnikov, “in one of the busiest and commonly used streets in the city, reaffirms the image of Russia as a militaristic and neo-imperialistic country that feels it is surrounded by enemies,” said Dmitry Shabelnikov, a lawyer who lives in the area.

“I’m not, in principle, against a statue of Kalashnikov. But it should not be erected here, now, and in this shape.”

A second sculpture behind the Kalashnikov monument depicts the Archangel Mikhail slaying a dragon with a spear. Salavat Shcherbakov, the artist responsible for both works, said the spear symbolises an AK-47.

“This represents the victory of good over the forces of evil,” said Shcherbakov, who also created a controversial 17-metre statue of Prince Vladimir the Great that was erected opposite the Kremlin in November.

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

Trump. Executive Order che blocca la cessione della Lattice Semiconductor.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-18.

Washington. White House. 001

Il Fema, Federal Emergency Management Agency, riporta il testo ed il pdf del

The Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.)

«Congress finds that—

(1) the security of the United States is dependent on the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States;

(2) to ensure the vitality of the domestic industrial base, actions are needed—

  (A) to promote industrial resources preparedness in the event of domestic or foreign threats to the security of the United States;

  (B) to support continuing improvements in industrial efficiency and responsiveness;

  (C) to provide for the protection and restoration of domestic critical infrastructure operations under emergency conditions; and

   (D) to respond to actions taken outside of the United States that could result in reduced supplies of strategic and critical materials, including energy, necessary for national defense and the general economic well-being of the United States; ….

measures to improve the domestic industrial base for national defense; …. (C) the development of domestic productive capacity to meet …. (i) essential national defense needs that can result from emergency conditions;  and …. (ii) unique technological requirements».

*

In ossequio a questa legge il Presidente Trump ha emesso questo Ordine Esecutivo:

Order Regarding the Proposed Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited

«Regarding the proposed acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China venture Capital Fund Corporation limited»

*

«By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (section 721), 50 U.S.C. 4565, it is hereby ordered as follows»

*

«There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that …. together with Merger Sub, Acquisition Company, Capital Investment, CBFI, and Yitai, the Purchasers), through exercising control of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (Lattice), might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States»

*

«The proposed acquisition of Lattice by the Purchasers (the proposed transaction) is prohibited, and any substantially equivalent transaction, whether effected directly or indirectly by the Purchasers, through the Purchasers’ shareholders or shareholders’ immediate, intermediate, or ultimate foreign person beneficial owners, or through the Purchasers’ subsidiaries, is also prohibited»

* * * * * * *

La Lattice Semiconductor Corporation è una società relativamente piccola, 784 dipendenti e giro di affari di 366 milioni.

«Lattice Semiconductor Corporation is an American manufacturer of high-performance programmable logic devices (FPGAs, CPLDs, & SPLDs). Founded in 1983, the company employs about 700 people and has annual revenues of around $300 million, with Darin Billerbeck as the chief executive officer. The Oregon-based company is the number three ranked company in world market share for field programmable gate array (FPGA) devices, and number two for CPLDs & SPLDs. The company went public in 1989 and is traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the symbol LSCC.» [Fonte]

La società ha avuto un passato tumultuoso, ivi compresa una bancarotta nel luglio 1987, con un impressionante numero di acquisizioni e cessioni, nonché cambi di proprietà.

«In April 2016, Tsinghua Holdings said in a U.S. filing that it accumulated a roughly 6 percent stake in Lattice Semiconductor through share purchased on the open market».

Nell’aprile 2016 la Tsinghua Holdings aveva pubblicamente dichiarato di essere in possesso del 6% delle azioni della Lattice Semiconductor Corporation.

*

Tsinghua Holdings?

«Tsinghua Holdings Corp., Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tsinghua University, itself a public university of China. The company was established as an in-house asset management company for Tsinghua’s subsidiaries that were established in 1990s by the technology transfer of research to business.» [Fonte]

Ma la Tsinghua Holdings Corp., Ltd. non è una società qualsiasi.

Ha un total assets di 207 miliardi di Yuan, e questo sarebbe il meno.

La Tsinghua Holdings Corp., Ltd. è di proprietà della Tsinghua University, che ne detiene il 100% del capitale.

Essa ha innumerevoli sussidiarie, tra le quali spicca la Unisplendor, “to doing large-scale software development for municipal and provincial governments across China, constructing infrastructure for highways, and producing scanners, laptops and digital cameras”

Ma la Tsinghua University è una università cinese alquanto differente dalle altre. Essa infatti appartiene sì al Ministero dell’Educazione, ma il proprietario finale del tutto è lo State Council of China. Non lo stato cinese, come per le altre università, bensì il Governo della Cina, dal quale dipendono strettamente i servizi informativi.

*

Ricapitoliamo.

Sotto la passata Amministrazione Obama una succursale dei servizi segreti cinesi si era comprata una parte del capitale di una industria strategica per la difesa degli Stati Uniti. Di lì accedeva al know-how di tutto il settore tecnologico.

Ci voleva il cambio di amministrazione per rendersi conto del fatto.


The White House. 2017-0915. Order Regarding the Proposed Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited

ORDER

– – – – – – –

Regarding the proposed acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China venture Capital Fund Corporation limited.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (section 721), 50 U.S.C. 4565, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Findings.  (a)  There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that (1) Canyon Bridge Merger Sub, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (Merger Sub); (2) Merger Sub’s parent companies Canyon Bridge Acquisition Company, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (Acquisition Company), Canyon Bridge Capital Investment Limited, an entity organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (Capital Investment), and Canyon Bridge Fund I, LP (CBFI), a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware; and (3) CBFI’s limited partner Yitai Capital Limited, a company organized under the laws of Hong Kong (Yitai), and Yitai’s parent company China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (CVCF and, together with Merger Sub, Acquisition Company, Capital Investment, CBFI, and Yitai, the Purchasers), through exercising control of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (Lattice), might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; and

(b)  Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), do not, in my judgment, provide adequate and appropriate authority for me to protect the national security in this matter.

Sec. 2.  Actions Ordered and Authorized.  On the basis of the findings set forth in section 1 of this order, considering the factors described in subsection 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as appropriate, and pursuant to my authority under applicable law, including section 721, I hereby order that:

(a)  The proposed acquisition of Lattice by the Purchasers (the proposed transaction) is prohibited, and any substantially equivalent transaction, whether effected directly or indirectly by the Purchasers, through the Purchasers’ shareholders or shareholders’ immediate, intermediate, or ultimate foreign person beneficial owners, or through the Purchasers’ subsidiaries, is also prohibited.

(b)  The Purchasers and Lattice shall take all steps necessary to fully and permanently abandon the proposed transaction not later than 30 days after the date of this order, unless such date is extended by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for a period not to exceed 90 days, on such conditions as CFIUS may require.  Immediately upon completion of all steps necessary to terminate the proposed transaction, the Purchasers and Lattice shall certify in writing to CFIUS that such termination has been effected in accordance with this order and that all steps necessary to fully and permanently abandon the proposed transaction have been completed.

(c)  From the date of this order until the Purchasers and Lattice provide a certification of termination of the proposed transaction to CFIUS pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Purchasers and Lattice shall certify to CFIUS on a weekly basis that they are in compliance with this order and include with that certification a description of all efforts to permanently abandon the proposed transaction and a timeline for projected completion of remaining actions necessary to effectuate the abandonment.

(d)  Any transaction or other device entered into or employed for the purpose of, or with the effect of, avoiding or circumventing this order is prohibited.

(e)  The Attorney General is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce this order.

Sec. 3.  Reservation.  I hereby reserve my authority to issue further orders with respect to the Purchasers or Lattice as shall in my judgment be necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

Sec. 4.  Publication and Transmittal.  (a)  This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

(b)  I hereby direct the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit a copy of this order to the parties to the proposed transaction named in section 1 of this order.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 13, 2017.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Senato. I democratici non vogliono la giudice Barrett al 7th Distric perché cattolica.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-17.

Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

«Amy Coney Barrett (born 1972) is the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law and Professor of Law at the Notre Dame Law School and has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In 1994, Barrett received a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude from Rhodes College. In 1997, she graduated from the Notre Dame Law School with a Juris Doctor, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. After graduation, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999. From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law in Washington, D.C. Since 2002, Barrett has taught at the Notre Dame Law School, where she was named Professor of Law in 2010, and since 2014 has held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015. Her nomination is now pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.

Her nomination was opposed by the Alliance for Justice. She wrote in a law review article that Catholic judges faced with making legal decisions contrary to their conscience (such as in death penalty cases) have a valid reason to recuse themselves rather than violating either their faith or their understanding of the law and legal precedent.

She is married to Jesse M. Barrett, an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, and they have seven children. Barrett is a practicing Catholic.» [Fonte]

*

«The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (in case citations, 7th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:

    Central District of Illinois

    Northern District of Illinois

    Southern District of Illinois

    Northern District of Indiana

    Southern District of Indiana

    Eastern District of Wisconsin

    Western District of Wisconsin

The court is based at the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois. It is one of thirteen United States courts of appeals. It is composed of eleven appellate judges.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Riassumiamo.

L’otto maggio il Presidente Trump ha nominato il Giudice Amy Coney Barrett quale membro della Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Questa nomina deve essere ratificata dal senato.

I senatori democratici stanno facendo il loro possibile per bloccare questa, come tutte le altre nomine di Giudici federali fatte dal Presidente Trump. La posta in gioco è il controllo delle Corti di Appello.

In questo caso la loro obiezione sarebbe che il Giudice Amy Coney Barrett è dichiaratamente cattolica, una caratteristica che i liberal democratici hanno in particolare uggia.

Questa opposizione è stata fatta nonostante che vi sia uno specifico articolo della Carta Costituzionale che la proibisce:

«in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

Article VI reads in relevant part:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”»

*

Ecco cosa ha detto il senatore Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Ha.).

«Ms. Barrett, I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges».

* * *

I liberal democratici hanno in odio la religione, specie quella cristiana e, massimamente, quella cattolica romana.

«If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge»

*

Ma nessuna affermazione potrà mai convincere i liberal democratici.

Odiano, e l’odio offusca la mente. È un qualcosa di viscerale.

Poveretti. Si sono fatti e si faranno un buon numero di travasi di bile.

Si noti infine, quasi a sfregio dei liberals, che il Giudice Barrett ha sette figli, cosa che non la ostacola nell’avere un curriculum invidiabile.


Nota importante.

L’analisi logica ci assicura come la frase enunciativa sia composta da un soggetto, un predicato ed un complemento.

In carenza di tale struttura non esiste enunciato: semplicemente non può esistere.

L’enunciato religioso ha per forma un qualcosa di simile:

Io credo che Dio esista

Poi, l’enunciato potrà essere complementato con tanti particolari, anche di grande importanza, ma il predicato è pur sempre il “credere“. Tale termine designa un atto volontario di enunciazione, che a posteriori potrà o meno essere logicamente verificato.

L’ateismo consiste nella negazione dell’enunciato prima detto. Ma la negazione esatta sarebbe:

Io credo che Dio non esista“.

La negazione pertiene infatti il complemento, non la possibilità del soggetto a credere.

*

Portiamo un ultimo esempio, per completezza formale.

Consideriamo questo enunciato:

“Tizio è biondo”

La sua negazione é

Tizio è non – biondo

perché è negato il complemento, non l’esistenza di Tizio..

Nell’italiano imbarbarito dei giornali, si legge spesso questa forma:

Tizio non è biondo

Questa frase semplicemente non sta in piedi: se Tizo “non è” significa semplicemente che non esiste, e chi non esiste non ha certo una qualche colore dei capelli.

*

La conseguenza logica è semplice.

Sia il professare una religione sia il negarla sono ambedue enunciazioni di una fede, essendo identico il predicato.

Nel caso specifico, i liberal democratici vorrebbero selezionare i giudici sulla base del loro credo, e per far ciò accusano di credere quanti ricusino politicamente, perché credono in un qualcosa diverso dal loro.


New American. 2017-09-11. Senators Impose Religious Test on Catholic Judicial Nominee

Members of a Senate committee seem committed to applying a religious test to one of President Trump’s nominees for federal judge, in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

Article VI reads in relevant part:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On September 6, Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett faced the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the nomination process to fill a position on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She was nominated last year by the president.

During the hearing, several Democratic members of the committee questioned whether Barrett’s faith — she’s a Roman Catholic — would keep her from following the law.

Referring to a paper published by Barrett regarding the obligations of Christian jurists, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed her prejudice against people of faith, or, in the words of the Constitution, she applied a “religious test” to someone seek “office or public trust under the United States.”

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country,” she added.

After trying to reassure Feinstein and the other senators on the committee that she would, in fact, decide cases according to established law and not her own “personal convictions,” Barrett was subjected to a second round of religious test, this time administered by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Ha.).

“Ms. Barrett, I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges,” Hirono said, parroting the persecution.

Considering the volume of the outrage, one would imagine that Barrett’s article called for the restoration of the Spanish Inquisition.

The truth is so much tamer, however.

In 1998, Barrett co-authored an article published by the Norte Dame Law Review entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” in which she suggested that in death penalty cases Catholics judges should be allowed to seek recusal.

That’s it. That’s why Democratic senators are skewering an accomplished judge, attempting to force her to clear a hermeneutic hurdle specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

For those still not convinced that certain senators were targeting Barrett’s faith and imposing a religious test, consider Senator Dick Durbin’s comments and questions during the hearing.

“What’s an ‘orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked, “Do you consider yourself an ‘orthodox Catholic?” he continued.

“If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” Barrett replied, appearing stunned that a senator would require her to defend her religious beliefs.

Thankfully, there was at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who refused to remain silent while his colleagues ignored their oaths of office and the explicit constitutional prohibition against their actions.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is a consistent friend to the Constitution and the day after the hearing he delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate that deserves to be read in its entirety. For the sake of space, here is an inspiring excerpt:

«I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about the fascinating men and women of America’s Founding Generation. I want to share with you one of their stories.

Jonas Phillips was a penniless Jewish immigrant, an indentured servant, a hard-working businessman, and an American patriot who served in the Philadelphia Militia during the Revolutionary War. During the British occupation of New York, he snuck messages past the censors by writing in Yiddish.

Years later, Phillips addressed a letter to George Washington and the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.

He urged them not to include a religious test in the Constitution as a requirement for public service, because no man, he wrote, should be “deprived or abridged of any Civil Right as a Citizen on account of his Religious sentiments.”

Jonas Phillips wrote this letter because Pennsylvania, the state where he lived, required officials to swear that the New Testament was inspired by God. As a faithful Jew, Jonas Phillips could not do that.

“By the above law,” he wrote, “a Jew is deprived of holding any public office or place of government.”

Thankfully, Jonas Phillips’ letter … his prayer … was answered. Days earlier, the convention had voted unanimously to ban religious tests for federal office.

The language the Framers inserted into the Constitution was unequivocal: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

When the Founders wrote “ever,” they meant it.»

As Senator Lee said in his speech, “These strange inquisitions have nothing to do with the nominees’ competency, patriotism, or ability to serve Americans of different faiths equally.”

I’ll give the final word to one of the Framers, Edmund Randolph, who, on June 10, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, explained the restriction on religious tests with the unique insight of one who was there when it was included in the Constitution. 

Read Randolph’s words closely. They are timely and timeless. Regarding this clause, Randolph said:

«It puts all sects on the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States? How many different sects will be in congress? We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America.»

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump se ne fa un baffo a torciglione di Frau Merkel. L’ultimo schiaffo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-16.

2017-09-15__Trump se ne fa un baffo a torciglione di Frau Merkel. L'ultimo schiaffo.__001

Cerchiamo di chiarirci le idee e di ragionare un po’, nei limiti del possibile.

La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel sostiene di avere una sua propria scala valoriale, che poi è soltanto quella liberal, ed ad essa condiziona ogni suo agire ed ogni suo rapporto.

Non vuole saperne di avere rapporti con stati e persone che non la abbiano pienamente accettata. Il tragico è che Frau Merkel è restata isolata dal punto di vista internazionale: i democratici hanno perso le elezioni negli Stati Uniti ed i socialisti sono scomparsi dalla Francia.

Tanto per ripassare la situazione, alcuni esempi.

Merkel. Una gran brutta figuraccia in Arabia Saudita.

«German Chancellor Merkel has arrived in the Saudi port city of Jeddah to hold talks with the kingdom’s authorities. Women’s rights are high on her agenda following massive criticism of Riyadh’s UN women’s body role …. dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women …. has raised fears that German arms were being misused»

Prontissima la risposta saudita:

«We will not cause any more problems for the German government with new requests for weapons»

Questi arabi: non ne vogliono proprio sapere di dimettersi e cedere il loro posto a delle femmine, né tanto meno sentono la imperiosa necessità di diventare omosessuali. Quindi la Germania ha rotto i rapporti.

*

Merkel. Dopo l’Arabia, adesso ci ha ritentato con Mr Putin.

«German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to help protect gay rights in Chechnya»

Chi mai avrebbe potuto immaginarselo. Nemmeno Mr Putin brucia dal desiderio di diventare gay per far piacere a Frau Merkel.

*

Germania e Turkia. Verso la rottura. – Bloomberg

Ma Frau Merkel ha litigato anche con la Turkia, ottenendone alcuni brillanti risultati.

Erdogan. Turki in Germania non votate Frau Merkel.

Turkia. Firmato contratto S-400. Si dice siano già operativi.

*

Heckler & Koch quietly becomes world’s most ethical gun-maker.

«we are not seeking to take part in new tenders in non-green countries …. Transparency International’s corruption index, and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index …. in alignment with the principles of the German Federal Government governing the export of small arms and light weapons»

Già: Heckler & Koch produce armi ma non le vende a chi ne abbia bisogno e voglia di usarle. Sembrerebbe che fabbrichi soprammobili per conventi carmelitani.

* * * * * * *

Manco a dirlo che Frau Merkel abbia litigato anche con Mr Trump, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Uno dei tanti risultati ottenuti è stato mestamente riassunto dal Deutsche Welle:

Germany blocks arms sales to Turkey – report

Ma chi mai è la Germania? Chi si crede di essere Frau Merkel?

*

Domandiamoci allora quanto vale la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel per potersi permettere simili comportamenti.

In altre parole, quali poteri impositivi della propria volontà ha?

Ramstein Air Base anti-drone protests — The Germans taking on the US military

US sent weapons to Syria through Ramstein military base – report

«Washington’s air base in southwest Germany was used for a time to store and send weapons to Syrian rebels, according to a German news daily. If the report proves true, the US could have violated German law.»

Ma mica solo ai ribelli siriani.

«Weapons flown from Ramstein to Turkey»

*

«a spokeswoman for Germany’s Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed that Germany has not approved weapons transfers through Ramstein air base since 2010.»

Al sodo. Gli americani sono in Germania e ci fanno ciò che loro aggrada.

* * * * * * *

Conclusione.

Gli americani riforniscono di armi chiunque loro interessi dalla base che hanno in Germania a Ramstein, facendosi un baffo a torciglione, uno di qua e l’altro di là, di quello che avrebbe voluto la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel: semplicemente la ignorano.

Per un personaggio politico l’essere ignorato è il colmo del disonore. In campo internazionale vale ancor meno di Mr Hollande.


Deutsche Welle. 2017-09-14. US sent weapons to Syria through Ramstein military base – report

Washington’s air base in southwest Germany was used for a time to store and send weapons to Syrian rebels, according to a German news daily. If the report proves true, the US could have violated German law.

*

The US military has been using its massive air base in western Germany to arm rebel groups in Syria without Berlin’s permission, according to a report from German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung published on Wednesday.

The US military may have violated German law with the alleged weapons transfers as the German government has not approved any weapons transports of this type since the conflict in Syria began in 2011.

The report was published after months of collaborative research among the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

The data was gathered from internal emails from the US military, interviews with whistleblowers, official reports and databanks from the US as well as the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

Weapons flown from Ramstein to Turkey

According to the Süddeutsche report, private service providers with the US military have been purchasing weapons and ammunition in eastern Europe since 2013.

The Russian-designed weapons, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, were sent from factories in Serbia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic and found their way to US command centers in Turkey and Jordan.

The weapons then made their way into the region either through ports in Romania and Bulgaria — or through the US military air base in Germany, the report said.

The purchases were part of a US Department of Defense program to arm Syrian rebels in northern Syria to fight against the so-called “Islamic State” in Raqqa.

What did Berlin know?

The German government denied any knowledge of arms transfers out of Ramstein, but Süddeutsche argued that Berlin must have known about it, but perhaps didn’t want to know all the details.

The paper cites a 2015 report from a Serbian newspaper about arms that were being flown by the US military to Ramstein with the end-goal of Syria. They also cited a 2016 UN weapons export report that listed 11,970 assault rifles and 50 heavy machine guns that were sent from Serbia to a “US military base in Germany.”

Speaking with German DPA news agency on Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Germany’s Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed that Germany has not approved weapons transfers through Ramstein air base since 2010.

“Of course we assume that the US government is aware of German law and the current arms embargoes,” the spokeswoman added.

Washington denies report

A spokeswoman with the US Special Operation Command (SOCOM) told Süddeutsche that no weapons that were intended for use in Syria were being stored in Germany or being sent to Syria via US military bases in Germany.

However, the SOCOM statement explicitly said these transfers were not taking place on planes chartered to Syria. When asked whether the weapons are being sent to Syrian rebels in another way, such as through military vehicles, the spokeswoman declined to comment.

According to the German paper, the US military did declare shipments from eastern Europe, saying that they were “for defense purposes in direct use by the US government,” but added that the weapons were to be used as “support for American training programs or security cooperation work.”

Süddeutsche warned that if Washington gave false statements to German agencies, there could be serious consequences for the US military, including barring them from further arms exports.

US activities at the Ramstein air base, which is the headquarters of the US Air Forces in Europe, have drawn protests, particularly over its role in the US drone program.

 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Terrorismo Islamico, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema conferma legalità del travel ban.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-13.

2017-09-13__Corte_Suprema__000

La Suprema Corte di Giustizia americana ha emanato ieri 12 settembre un Order in pending case, che blocca la pregressa sentenza della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito. Questa sentenza rigettava l’Ordine Esecutivo di Mr Trump noto come Travel Ban.

Non vogliamo entrare nel merito, poiché la Suprema Corte ha tuttora la causa pendente.

Notiamo però che quando i Giudici Federali della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito avevano bloccato l’Executive Order del Presidente Trump, i media avevano pubblicato titoli a sei ed otto colonne.

Eccovi adesso in fotocopia le prime pagine di Cnn e del The New York Times.

La differenza è stridente.

2017-09-13__Corte_Suprema__001

2017-09-13__Corte_Suprema__002


Cnn. 2017-09-13. Supreme Court: Trump admin can keep travel ban on most refugees

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court granted Tuesday a Trump administration request to continue to bar most refugees under its travel ban.

Without comment, the court blocked a federal appeals court ruling from last week that would have exempted refugees who have a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations from the travel ban while the justices consider its legality. The ruling could impact roughly 24,000 people.

The travel ban bars certain people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

The issue concerning the scope of the travel ban has been ricocheting through the courts since last spring when the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s ban to go into effect except for those with a “bona fide” relationship to the United States. The order might give hope to supporters of the ban, but it may also simply reflect a desire on the part of the justices to maintain the status quo until the justices can hear the case next month.

“Although it may be tempting to see the order as a harbinger of how the court is likely to rule on the merits, it’s better understood as a very modest procedural step to stabilize the full scope of the injunctions against the travel ban over the next four weeks,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, although it took five justices to make the decision.

The court is expected to take up the legality of the travel ban October 10.

This story is breaking and will be updated.


The New York Times. 2017-09-13. Justices Allow Refugee Ban While Case Proceeds

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to stop some 24,000 refugees from entering the United States while the court considers broad challenges to the administration’s revised travel ban.

The court’s brief order effectively reversed part of an appeals court ruling that had lifted the travel ban’s restrictions on the nation’s refugee program. There were no noted dissents.

The appeals court had also rejected the administration’s efforts to bar travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries by people with grandparents, uncles, aunts and other relatives here. The administration did not challenge that part of the appeals court’s ruling, and the Supreme Court did not address it.

The court will hear arguments on the lawfulness of the travel ban on Oct. 10. Tuesday’s order was the latest in a series of interim measures interpreting statements in a June ruling in which the court agreed to hear the case. In the meantime, the court temporarily reinstated the travel ban — but only for people without “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The meaning of that phrase has been contested ever since. The court did not specify which relatives qualified, for instance, but it did say that spouses and mothers-in-law “clearly” counted.

“As for entities,” the court said, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading” the executive order. It gave examples: students admitted to American universities qualified, as did workers with job offers from American companies and lecturers invited to address American audiences.

On the other hand, the court said, relationships formed for the purpose of evading the travel ban did not count.

The Trump administration interpreted both parts of the June ruling narrowly. It said that only some relatives of American residents — parents, children, spouses, siblings, parents-in-law, sons- and daughters-in-law and people engaged to be married — could enter. The administration barred other relatives, including grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and cousins.

The administration also said that relationships between refugees and resettlement agencies were too attenuated to qualify for an exception to the ban because the arrangements had been made by an intermediary: the government.

In July, Judge Derrick K. Watson of United States District Court in Honolulu disagreed with the administration’s interpretation on both points. “Common sense,” he said, for instance, required grandparents to qualify as close relatives.

Judge Watson also ruled in favor of those refugees whom resettlement agencies were prepared to assist.

“An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones,” he wrote. “It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in Seattle, agreed on both points. At the Supreme Court, the government challenged only the part of the appeals court’s ruling concerning refugees, arguing that there is no direct connection between refugees and resettlement agencies.

“The absence of a formal connection between a resettlement agency and a refugee subject to an assurance stands in stark contrast to the sort of relationships this court identified as sufficient in its June 26 stay ruling,” the government’s brief said. “Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any free-standing connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government.”

In response, lawyers for Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, said the administration was mistaking form for substance.

“One would not, for example,” the brief said, “deny the existence of a ‘relationship’ between a couple and the child they plan to adopt from overseas, even though the couple has not had ‘direct contact’ with the child, and even though the only formal agreement is between the couple and the adoption agency.”

On Monday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy temporarily blocked the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which would have gone into effect on Tuesday. The order from the full court on Tuesday supplanted that temporary measure.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. La guerra civile americana si avvia alla sua Gettysburg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-12.

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

«Immortale odium et numquam sanabile vulnus.»

Questo è il sentimento che anima i liberal democratici nei confronti di Mr Trump e dei repubblicani.


Cerchiamo di andare con ordine.

*

«Le tappe sequenziali sono da Copione.

Dapprima si fomentano movimenti che sono poi indicati come nati spontaneamente dalla “società civile” che si indignano per un certo quale comportamento o fatto. Non serve poi nemmeno arruolarne troppi.

Subito dopo i media controllati recepiscono l’istanza portata avanti ed iniziano a presentarla come se essa fosse comune sentire di tutto il popolo.

Quando la marea mediatica è al culmine, l’Office of Congressional Ethics – ora eliminato dai senatori americani – prendeva posizione, indicando quella istanza come “diritto umano fondamentale“. La vera o presunta non osservanza sarebbe stata incompatibile con cariche pubbliche.

Quindi si suscitavano dei contenziosi giudiziari nel territorio, ben pilotati in modo tale da fare alla fine pervenire le pratiche alla Supreme Court, sorta di Corte Costituzionale, che avrebbe dichiarato tale istanza compatibile con la Costituzione e la sua non osservanza incostituzionale.

A questo punto era spianata la strada per una serie di adeguati provvedimenti legislativi a livello federale.»

*

Questa guerra si sta svolgendo nelle aule di Congresso e Senato, nelle piazze e, soprattutto, sulle nomine dei Giudici nella Corti Federali, ad oggi vero e proprio gruppo di fuoco dei liberal.

Stati Uniti. È in corso una guerra civile. Occorre prenderne atto.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

*

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

Trump. Supreme Court. Il chiodo nella carne dei democratici.

Trump ed il nodo della Supreme Court.

*

«L’Amministrazione Obama, con il pieno supporto del partito democratico, ha mutato la Corte Suprema da giudice ultimo e serenamente obiettivo di costituzionalità in strumento di azione politica. Nessuno intende usare parole grosse, che qui sarebbero peraltro appropriate: si constata che sotto la pregressa Amministrazione la Corte Suprema ha dichiarato essere costituzionale oppure incostituzionale ciò che tale pareva essere agli occhi del Former President Obama. Le motivazioni politiche hanno prevalso su quelle giuridiche.

Questa mutazione ha cambiato la tecnica di governo: tutto ciò che non era possibile con le urne o con il parlamento, lo diventava nelle aule dei tribunali. Le corti di giustizia diventavano immediatamente un potentissimo strumento di dominio. Dal momento in cui i giudici potevano ‘interpretare‘ la legge invece che applicarla, tutto diventava possibile. Avere la Suprema Corte a schieramento democratico avrebbe consentito di sovvertire l’intero sistema democratico. Cosa infatti accaduta.»

* * * * * * * * *

«President Donald Trump’s decision to end an Obama-era program preventing the deportation of immigrants illegally brought to the U.S. as children risks a deep wedge between the Republican Party’s leaders and its conservative base ahead of next year’s congressional elections»

*

«In announcing an end to the program in the next six months, Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to codify the protections President Barack Obama created for about 800,000 people, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.»

*

«In the face of a sharp backlash over his decision by Democrats and some Republicans, Trump issued a tweet Tuesday evening that suggested he was open to reversing course but offered no details to back it up»

*

«For some Republicans up for re-election next year, such as Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada, DACA is a minefield to navigate»

*

«Immigration hardliners on the right will have great influence in Republican primary elections, while more moderate voters will be key in their contests with Democratic opponents, said Jennifer Duffy, Senate editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report»

*

«Democrats would love to have this issue alive and well in the primary season»

*

«The Republican Party has struggled to improve its appeal with Latino voters, even though there has been little change in policy»

*

«A number of vulnerable Republican senators and House members could see their 2018 re-election campaigns threatened by a protracted congressional debate over DACA»

*

«Danny Tarkanian, who announced he will challenge Heller for Nevada’s GOP Senate nod, also has promised to support Trump on tighter immigration enforcement»

* * * * * * * * *

Un vecchio proverbio suonava in questo andante:

“Dagli amici mi salvi Dio, che dai nemici mi salvo io”.

*

Mr Trump ha cacciato un bel sasso in piccionaia.

– I democratici tenteranno di difendere il Dapa, ma non ce la faranno, scontentando in questa maniera molti Latinos.

– Molti senatori repubblicani per troppo tempo hanno flirtato con i democratici: repubblicani a parole e democratici al voto in Senato. Ma l’anno prossimo ci saranno le elezioni di medio termine. Se negli stati a maggioranza repubblicana è del tutto ragionevole che risulti eletto il senatore repubblicano, mica è detto che codesti Fregoli ottengano la nomination: su questo argomento la base repubblicana, gli Elettori, hanno da tempo perso la pazienza.

*

Se questa operazione potesse andare bene, il Presidente Trump eliminerebbe la fronda interna al suo partito e farebbe nel contempo prendere una salubre facciata ai democratici.

Poi, mentre tesse la sua tela di ragno, ogni tanto butta lì l’osso alla muta dei cani: qualche twitter sui trangender ed i media hanno di che parlare per tre mesi. Senza occuparsi di ciò che conta.


Bloomberg. 2017-09-06. Trump Risks GOP Civil War in Pushing Congress for ‘Dreamer’ Bill

– Former Trump aide Bannon is stoking a battle over the issue

– President made decision without consulting Republicans

*

President Donald Trump’s decision to end an Obama-era program preventing the deportation of immigrants illegally brought to the U.S. as children risks a deep wedge between the Republican Party’s leaders and its conservative base ahead of next year’s congressional elections.

In announcing an end to the program in the next six months, Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to codify the protections President Barack Obama created for about 800,000 people, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

But Trump made his decision against the advice of senior Republican leaders like Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who said in a statement that he called Trump last week to urge him to preserve the program. Nor did Trump consult much with business leaders or allies outside the White House, according to five people familiar with the matter.

One influential outside adviser, Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman, had recommended earlier this year that Trump keep DACA in place, but one White House aide said Trump didn’t check back with Schwarzman before making up his mind this weekend. He instead focused on recommendations from officials inside the Homeland Security and Justice departments, the aide said.

In the face of a sharp backlash over his decision by Democrats and some Republicans, Trump issued a tweet Tuesday evening that suggested he was open to reversing course but offered no details to back it up.

“Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!,” he tweeted.

Whether Republicans wanted the debate or not, the DACA decision threatens to again lay bare the civil war over immigration between far-right conservatives and more business-minded Republicans. One person eager to fight that battle: Trump’s former chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, who may have had more influence over the president’s decision than even Trump knows.

Presidency ‘Over’

Since leaving the White House last month, Bannon has stoked the president’s hard-right instincts in news interviews. He chose his words carefully when he declared in an interview with the Weekly Standard last month, shortly after departing, that the Trump presidency was “over,” according to two people familiar with his thinking.

Bannon wanted Trump angry, and was daring the president to prove him wrong by veering back toward the nationalist-populist philosophy the Breitbart executive chairman espouses. 

For some Republicans up for re-election next year, such as Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada, DACA is a minefield to navigate. Immigration hardliners on the right will have great influence in Republican primary elections, while more moderate voters will be key in their contests with Democratic opponents, said Jennifer Duffy, Senate editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

Bannon has predicted a congressional debate over the program will tear the party apart, the people familiar with his thinking say.

“Democrats would love to have this issue alive and well in the primary season,” said Duffy.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said that if DACA legislation isn’t approved in September, lawmakers from his party are likely to try to attach it to other measures.

“I am confident that if put on the floor, it will garner overwhelming support,” Schumer told reporters Monday.

Emotional Debate

The divisions among Republicans have already surfaced. 

“From a Republican party point of view, this is a defining moment,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday at a news conference with the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, to urge passage of legislation protecting immigrants in the DACA program.

By contrast, Representative Steve King of Iowa, who urged Trump over the weekend to end the program outright, said that a delay to let Republican leadership develop legislation codifying the protections, which he considers “amnesty,” would be “Republican suicide.”

In the Senate, Flake has called for a standalone bill that would allow children brought to the U.S. unlawfully to stay, while Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said he would only support legislation to protect the immigrants if it also includes measures such as punishment for so-called “sanctuary cities” that forbid their police from cooperating with immigration authorities and a crackdown on companies hiring undocumented workers.

“I think this is more emotional than Obamacare, and I think this is difficult,” said Alice Stewart, a Republican communications consultant who worked on Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential bid. “I have seen more heated arguments over immigration reform than Obamacare.”

President Barack Obama created DACA after legislation that would have provided legal status to the immigrants failed in the U.S. Senate in December 2010. After Republicans took control of the House in 2011, there was little impetus to revive so-called “Dream Act” legislation.

Congress also has been unable to advance more comprehensive immigration legislation, the sort of bill that could include a DACA-type provision. The Senate in 2013 passed legislation that would create a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., combined with more than $46 billion for border security. The U.S. House, however, never acted.

Latino Appeal

The Republican Party has struggled to improve its appeal with Latino voters, even though there has been little change in policy. An “autopsy” on the party’s 2012 presidential loss by then-Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus warned that the party’s standing with Latino voters was dangerously low and urged party members to abandon hard-line positions on immigration and embrace a comprehensive overhaul.

“If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only,” the report said.

But among much of Trump’s base, any such legislation is derided as “amnesty” for people who have violated U.S. law, and the lawmakers who support it are likely to be opposed by those voters, Republican strategists said.

Legislative Strategy

Now that Trump has laid out a deadline for the program, House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and other Republican leaders haven’t indicated when or how they’ll consider legislation to preserve it. Ryan said in a statement that he hopes Congress will pass a bill that “includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country.”

Ryan told reporters Wednesday that “people should rest easy,” though he said a solution should be paired with action to secure U.S. borders. “I do believe there’s a compromise to be had here,” he said.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was even less committal. “This Congress will continue working on securing our border and ensuring a lawful system of immigration that works,” he said in a statement.

And while there are must-pass vehicles this fall that could carry a DACA provision — including a stop-gap spending measure due by the end of the month to prevent a government shutdown — Republican conservatives in both chambers will likely balk at such a strategy. Many of them have demanded trade-offs that would prolong debate and cost the legislation Democratic support, including enhanced security at the U.S.-Mexico border — or even money to pay for Trump’s proposed border wall — and tighter limits on legal immigration.

Trump this summer publicly offered his support for a measure by GOP senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, a bill that would slash legal immigration by half over a decade.

Vulnerable Republicans

A number of vulnerable Republican senators and House members could see their 2018 re-election campaigns threatened by a protracted congressional debate over DACA.

Flake and Heller, the two Senate Republicans most at risk of losing their seats, both have sizable Latino populations in their states and support preserving DACA’s protections. Republican House members with similar demographics in their districts have taken the same position, including Mike Coffman of Colorado, Jeff Denham of California and Carlos Curbelo of Florida.

Flake and Heller both face Republican primary opponents who are sticking close to Trump on immigration issues.

Kelli Ward, who ran unsuccessfully against Senator John McCain of Arizona in 2016, recently announced she will run against Flake. She says on her website that the U.S. “cannot reward breaking our laws with citizenship, ever,” and said in a statement Tuesday that Trump made the “right decision” by rescinding DACA.

Danny Tarkanian, who announced he will challenge Heller for Nevada’s GOP Senate nod, also has promised to support Trump on tighter immigration enforcement.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ottavo Circuito. La nomina del Giudice Ryan Stras arriva al Senato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-08.

2017-09-09__Ottavo_Circuito__001

«Confirmations are still pending for more than 30 of Mr Trump’s other federal judicial nominees.»

*

«The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in case citations, 8th Cir.) is a United States federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts:

    Eastern District of Arkansas

    Western District of Arkansas

    Northern District of Iowa

    Southern District of Iowa

    District of Minnesota

    Eastern District of Missouri

    Western District of Missouri

    District of Nebraska

    District of North Dakota

    District of South Dakota» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Questa guerra dei liberal democratici si sta svolgendo nelle aule di Congresso e Senato, nelle piazze e, soprattutto, sulle nomine dei Giudici nella Corti Federali, ad oggi vero e proprio gruppo di fuoco dei liberal.

Stati Uniti. È in corso una guerra civile. Occorre prenderne atto.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

*

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

Trump. Supreme Court. Il chiodo nella carne dei democratici.

Trump ed il nodo della Supreme Court.

*

«L’Amministrazione Obama, con il pieno supporto del partito democratico, ha mutato la Corte Suprema da giudice ultimo e serenamente obiettivo di costituzionalità in strumento di azione politica. Nessuno intende usare parole grosse, che qui sarebbero peraltro appropriate: si constata che sotto la pregressa Amministrazione la Corte Suprema ha dichiarato essere costituzionale oppure incostituzionale ciò che tale pareva essere agli occhi del Former President Obama. Le motivazioni politiche hanno prevalso su quelle giuridiche.

Questa mutazione ha cambiato la tecnica di governo: tutto ciò che non era possibile con le urne o con il parlamento, lo diventava nelle aule dei tribunali. Le corti di giustizia diventavano immediatamente un potentissimo strumento di dominio. Dal momento in cui i giudici potevano ‘interpretare‘ la legge invece che applicarla, tutto diventava possibile. Avere la Suprema Corte a schieramento democratico avrebbe consentito di sovvertire l’intero sistema democratico. Cosa infatti accaduta.»

*

Chi ha la maggioranza nelle Corti di Giustizia Federali è colui che governa gli Stati Uniti: vale più del Presidente e del Congresso.

Se non si capisce questo semplice concetto, non si capisce nulla dell’America attuale.

*

Giudice Diana E. Murphy, passata a Senior nella Corte di Appello dell’Ottavo Circuito.

«Diana E. Murphy, (born January 4, 1934) is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Murphy was born in Faribault, Minnesota. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Minnesota in 1954. She received a Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1974. At law school she was an editor of the Minnesota Law Review. She was in private practice of law in Minneapolis, Minnesota from 1974 to 1976. She was a judge on the Hennepin County Municipal Court, Minnesota from 1976 to 1978. She was a judge on the Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District from 1978 to 1980. She was the Commission Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 1999 to 2004.

Murphy was nominated by President Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 20, 1980, and received commission the same day. She served as Chief Judge from 1992 to 1994. Her service was terminated on October 13, 1994, due to elevation to the Eighth Circuit.

Murphy was nominated by President Bill Clinton on July 28, 1994, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge John R. Gibson. She was confirmed by the Senate on October 7, 1994, and received commission on October 11, 1994. She took senior status on November 29, 2016. Murphy was the first woman to serve on the Eighth Circuit.» [Fonte]

* * *

Giudice Ryan Stras, nominato dal Presidente Trump quale Giudice nella Corte di Appello dell’Ottavo Circuito.

«David Ryan Stras (born 1974) is an American attorney and jurist who is an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He has been nominated by President Trump to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge Diana E. Murphy.

Stras was born in 1974 in Wichita, Kansas. He received a B.A. with highest honors and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas where he became a member of Theta Chi Fraternity. In 1999, he earned a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Criminal Procedure Edition of the Kansas Law Review.

Stras clerked for Judges Melvin Brunetti on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Stras then worked at the D.C. office of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood for one year, after which he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court.

Stras was a professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School from 2004 to 2010, teaching and writing in the areas of federal courts and jurisdiction, constitutional law, criminal law, and law and politics. He also served as co-director of the Institute for Law and Politics. Stras has contributed to research on such topics as judicial pensions and life tenure for judges. He has also studied judicial appointments and the politics of courts. He is a member of the Federalist Society.

Stras was appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court by Governor Tim Pawlenty, with his term beginning on July 1, 2010. He was sworn in on July 12, 2010 in a public ceremony. Stras was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his appointment, he was a frequent guest on legal topics at Minnesota Public Radio. He is believed to be the first Jewish justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court. He was on President Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court justices.

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Stras to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge Diana E. Murphy who took senior status on November 29, 2016. His nomination is now pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On September 5, 2017, Minnesota Senator Al Franken announced that he would not return his blue slip for Stras.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Sì. Negli Stati Uniti è in corso una guerra civile.

La dirigenza democratica sa benissimo che Mr Trump eleggerà entro fine mandato 139 giudici nelle Corti Federali e che da quel momento tutte le loro istanze saranno sistematicamente bocciate, perché saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.


The Washington Times. 2017-09-06. Al Franken will use Senate blue-slip tradition to block Trump judiciary nominee

Sen. Al Franken said Tuesday that he will use an arcane Senate tradition to try to derail one of President Trump’s appeals court nominees, marking an escalation in what has become a nasty fight over the shape of the federal judiciary.

Mr. Franken said he won’t return his “blue slip” for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras, Mr. Trump’s nominee for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Senate tradition, the chamber won’t proceed on a judicial nominee unless both home-state senators return their blue slips, signifying acquiescence in the pick.

Left with little power to filibuster, the blue slip has become the most effective tool Democrats have to obstruct Mr. Trump’s court nominees.

Mr. Franken said he is objecting because Judge Stras looks to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia as role models.

“I am concerned that a nominee nurtured by such an ideology would likely seek to impose it on the litigants before him,” Mr. Franken said in a press release announcing his decision.

His move puts pressure on Senate Republicans, who must decide whether to respect the blue slip tradition and scuttle the nomination or to proceed anyway, curbing yet another minority check.

Democrats curtailed the filibuster for district and circuit court picks in 2013, and Republicans followed their lead this year by defanging the filibuster in the case of Supreme Court picks.

Conservative advocacy groups on Tuesday urged Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, to move forward with Justice Stras’s nomination despite Mr. Franken’s move.

“Justice Stras follows the law, he has broad support from across the political spectrum in Minnesota, he was re-elected by wide margins (wider margins than Sen. Franken), and he even earned the highest rating from the liberal American Bar Association,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network.

Republicans say that while blue slips have generally been respected, they don’t represent a hard-and-fast rule.

Democrats counter that they observed the tradition when President Obama was in the White House and Senate Republicans objected to his picks from their home states.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that last year alone, four of Mr. Obama’s circuit court picks stalled out because of blue slip objections.

She said she hopes Republicans give Democrats the same treatment.

“It’s the prerogative of home-state senators to evaluate potential federal judicial nominees and determine whether or not they are mainstream and well-suited to hold these important positions of public trust, which have real-world consequences for their constituents,” she said.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat and Minnesota’s other senator, said she thought Judge Stras deserved a hearing. Now that Mr. Franken has withheld his blue slip, she said, Mr. Grassley should stick to the tradition and derail the nomination.

“Given this important policy, and given Sen. Franken’s view that Justice Stras should not be allowed a hearing in the Senate, the White House will need to provide additional names for the 8th Circuit position,” Ms. Klobuchar said.

Mr. Franken is the first to use the Senate tradition as a stopper. Three other Democrats have returned their blue slips allowing Michigan Supreme Court Judge Joan Larsen and Amy Coney Barrett to have a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Concerned about the potential blockage of Judge Larsen, Ms. Severino’s organization launched a $140,000 ad campaign in Michigan in June to pressure the state’s two Democratic senators to support her nomination by the president to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Liberal advocates objected to Mr. Grassley’s decision to hold a hearing involving both Judge Larsen and Ms. Barrett, as well as a number of Justice Department picks, on the same day.

Dan Goldberg, legal director for the progressive Alliance for Justice, called it “outrageous,” saying there has been only one circuit court nominee per confirmation hearing in the past.

“There were only three exceptions during the entire Obama presidency and all three were noncontroversial,” said Mr. Goldberg. “Instead, Chuck Grassley — for the second time this Congress — is ramming through controversial nominees.”

Mr. Goldberg said the senators should scrutinize the judges’ records on women’s and gay rights.

The Senate returned Tuesday from a summer recess to confirm Timothy Kelly to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia. The 94-2 vote makes him only the second out of 23 district judges nominated by Mr. Trump to get cleared.

Confirmations are still pending for more than 30 of Mr. Trump’s other federal judicial nominees.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Jeff Sessions abroga il piano Daca, che legalizzava la illegalità.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-06.

2017-08-04__Trump TELEMMGLPICT000136310797-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqHwnvh86NCImGNxSron0kTyxqUYn5PGopOSNBtx07gTA

Tantum dabis, tantum dabo.


«Il ministro americano della Giustizia Jeff Sessions ha annunciato che il programma di amnistia per i ‘Dreamers’ – noto come DACA- “viene abrogato” dalla amministrazione Trump. Si tratta di un provvedimento “incostituzionale”, ha affermato Sessions.

Il programma finora ha permesso ai giovani arrivati illegalmente negli Usa da piccoli, di lavorare e studiare senza il rischio di essere espulsi. ….

Nell’annunciare la decisione di revocare il provvedimento preso dal presidente Barack Obama nel 2012 – e che riguarda circa 800 mila persone – Sessions conferma quanto trapelato durante il weekend, e rimette al Congresso la responsabilita’ sul tema, cui viene riconosciuta una finestra di sei mesi per agire. ….

Sono qui oggi per annunciare che il programma noto come Daca attivato durante l’amministrazione Obama viene abrogato …. La nazione deve fissare e applicare un limite su quanti immigrati ammettiamo ogni anno e cio’ vuol dire con non tutti possono essere accettati …. Cio’ non vuol dire che sono cattive persone o che la nazione non li rispetta o li sminuisce in alcun modo. Vuol dire che stiamo applicando le nostre leggi nella maniera corretta, cosi’ come approvate dal Congresso» [Fonte]

*

Così Mr Jeff Sessions abroga una direttiva dell’ex – Presidente Obama che permetteva un vivere legale a quanti fossero entrati illegalmente negli Stati Uniti, sotto certe condizioni.

Ma nel fare questo, Mr Sessions rimette la decisione finale al Congresso, ossia all’organo di Governo legalmente eletto dal Popolo americano.

* * * * * * *

Si resta esterrefatti al leggere pesanti critiche ad un Governo che voglia applicare  e far rispettare le leggi della federazione e fare ritornare la legalità.

Se è vero che Mr Obama ed i liberal democratici siano sicuramente liberi di esprimere la loro opinione, sarebbe altrettanto vero affermare che nelle recenti elezioni il Popolo sovrano non ha consegnato a loro la maggioranza del paese.

Alla fine anche i liberal democratici dovranno imparare che in una democrazia l’opposizione minoritaria non è la componente al governo, e che la democrazia non è governata dalla piazza. In realtà i liberals odiano la democrazia.

Credono di essere in maggioranza perché qualche migliaio di persone dimostra in piazza?

Benissimo.

Ci si conterà alle prossime elezioni di mezzo termine.

*

Il The New York Times pubblica questo titolo:

Trump Revokes ‘Dreamer’ Plan; 800,000 Face Unsure Future

«- President Trump revoked a program that shields young unauthorized immigrants from deportation, giving Congress six months to draft a legal path to amnesty.

– Protests broke out across the nation and online. “To target these young people is wrong,” Barack Obama wrote on Facebook.»

*

La Cnn pubblica, inter alias, un titolo ragionevole:

Trump is doing to the Dreamers what was done to him

«Now that he’s the symbolic father of the American family, he’s doing to the Dreamers what was done to him»

*

Di cosa poi ci sarebbe da stupirsi?

I liberal democratici saranno trattati per come hanno trattato. Non si facciano illusioni di sorta.


The Washington Times. 2017-09-05. Trump phaseout of DACA gives Congress six months to devise solution for Dreamers

The Trump administration on Tuesday declared the Obama-era DACA program unconstitutional and ordered a phaseout, giving Congress six months to devise a permanent solution for 800,000 young adult illegal immigrant Dreamers who could be at risk of deportation.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the decision, saying he didn’t see a way to defend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals against a legal challenge. He recommended revoking the program, and President Trump accepted the decision.

Mr. Trump said he now expects Congress to pass legislation that will “work out very well” for Dreamers.

But critics, including congressional Democrats, immigrant rights advocates, business lobbies and a host of liberal interest groups, called Mr. Trump’s decision cruel. Former President Barack Obama, who created the program in 2012, accused his successor of betraying the American spirit.

Mr. Trump’s phaseout does not mean immediate deportations, and those who hold DACA permits will be able to serve out the remainder of their two-year legal status. Some will even be eligible to apply for two-year renewals over the next month.

But no first-time applications will be approved, and even those already protected by DACA said they still face uncertainty in their jobs, schools or other aspects of life.

Mr. Sessions defended the phaseout as the legal and humane choice, saying Mr. Obama’s policy broke the law and courts would have struck it down once it was firmly challenged.

He said revoking DACA was a step toward restoring order within the immigration system.

“To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. It’s just that simple,” Mr. Sessions said at the Justice Department. “That is an open-borders policy, and the American people have rightly rejected that.”

DACA grants a two-year stay of deportation and offers a work permit, which in turn entitles illegal immigrants to a Social Security number, a driver’s license and tax benefits. In some states, it also earns in-state tuition and even financial aid at public colleges. The permits can be renewed, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are on their third round.

“Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch,” Mr. Sessions said.

Under the phaseout plan, only those whose DACA status will expire by March 5 will be able to apply for renewals. They must file renewal applications by Oct. 5 to be considered.

The announcement will likely set up a rush for renewals from tens of thousands of Dreamers.

Homeland Security Department officials said DACA status will expire for approximately 150,000 illegal immigrants by March 5. It was unclear how many of those had renewal requests pending, but officials said 55,258 people whose status would expire by December have submitted renewal requests.

Mr. Trump allowed the Justice and Homeland Security departments to announce the decision, but he issued a lengthy statement blaming the Obama administration’s immigration actions for spurring “a humanitarian crisis,” enticing waves of unaccompanied minors from Central America to sneak across the Mexican border into the U.S.

He linked the surge of minors to gang violence, saying some young people went on to become members of MS-13. He said a failure to enforce federal immigration law has led to lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers.

Mr. Trump chided Mr. Obama for repeatedly saying he didn’t have the power to grant a broad categorical exemption from deportation, before reversing himself and doing so.

“There can be no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will,” Mr. Trump said.

However, Mr. Trump seemed to make a similar threat Tuesday evening on Twitter.

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!” he wrote, without specifying what a “revisit” would mean.

The administration was facing a Sept. 5 deadline set by Texas and other Republican-led states that have said they would challenge DACA in court unless the president phased out the program. The case would have gone to a judge who already ruled a similar 2014 program, known as DAPA, illegal.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Mr. Trump made the right call in canceling the program, and he moved late Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit he was using as a prod.

“Our lawsuit was always about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy,” Mr. Paxton said.

Mr. Obama, however, said his policy was legal and good for the country.

“Let’s be clear: The action taken today isn’t required legally,” Mr. Obama said. “Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate or lighten anyone’s taxes or raise anybody’s wages.”

When their DACA permits expire, Dreamers will again be eligible for deportation — though Homeland Security officials said they will remain low priorities for deportation unless they commit serious crimes or are otherwise deemed security risks.

DACA recipients will also lose access to work permits, though it’s unclear whether the federal government plans to step up law enforcement operations targeting businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on any plans but said ICE Homeland Security Investigations continues to employ a comprehensive work-site enforcement strategy that “focuses on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.”

Groups that want stricter immigration enforcement cheered the announcement as progress toward finding a long-term solution.

“The winding-down period announced today will not only give DACA recipients time to get their affairs in order, but also gives Congress a unique opportunity to re-engage in the immigration debate,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Congress should seize this opportunity to come together and forge these much-needed reforms in our nation’s immigration policy.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said he was hopeful that Congress will come to a consensus on a permanent legislative solution “that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country.”

Democrats, though, said they want Congress to quickly pass a stand-alone bill granting a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers.

Immigrant rights groups were considering their legal options to stop Mr. Trump.

Attorneys for a DACA recipient who was brought to the U.S. when he was 7 asked a Brooklyn judge on Tuesday to allow them to amend an existing lawsuit to challenge Mr. Trump’s actions on grounds that they violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

State attorneys general for New York, Washington and California also have threatened to take legal action to defend the DACA program.

Opponents of the Trump administration’s actions worried that the cancellation of DACA would sow chaos and fear among immigrant communities.

“Ending DACA will devastate the lives of young men and women who have essentially known no home other than America,” said Vanita Gupta, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “The president should be supporting efforts to create a legal path to allowing Dreamers to stay — not kicking them to the curb.”

At the same time the Justice Department was announcing the DACA revocation, immigrant rights activists rallied outside the White House and in major cities across the country. Protesters were arrested outside Trump Tower in New York City.

While Mr. Trump said DACA recipients would not be targeted for deportation unless they were gang members or criminals, many immigrant rights groups were concerned that information DACA recipients turned over to the federal government to receive benefits would now be used against them.

To be eligible for DACA, recipients cannot have any serious criminal records, so Homeland Security officials said they are unlikely to be the focus of deportation efforts.

“Very little has changed for our enforcement posture,” said a Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to brief reporters ahead of the announcement.

Current law still calls for illegal immigrants to be deported, however, so unless the law is changed, anyone without authorization to be in the country could be kicked out.

While some immigrant rights groups worried that personal information turned over by Dreamers might now be used to track them down once their DACA status expires, Homeland Security officials said an Obama-era prohibition generally bans the sharing of DACA recipients’ information with deportation officers unless there is a significant law enforcement or national security interest.

Officials also said they will stop granting a shortcut pathway to citizenship to Dreamers through a loophole known as “advance parole.” Under advance parole, Dreamers could get permission to leave and re-enter the U.S. and, because of a quirk of law, when they re-enter they could apply for permanent legal status as long as they have another qualifying relationship.

Tens of thousands of DACA recipients have already applied for the advance parole loophole, and several thousand have earned a pathway to citizenship, according to statistics the government released last week.