«Due persone dello stesso sesso costituiscono un’unione civile mediante dichiarazione di fronte all’ufficiale di stato civile»

5 giugno 2016: fine della famiglia naturale in Italia

di Alfredo Mantovano

La legge n. 76/2016 c.d. Cirinnà entra in vigore oggi. Pone a carico dei Comuni precisi obblighi sia quanto al rito di avvio dell’unione civile sia quanto alla trascrizione nei registri dello stato civile dei matrimoni same sexcontratti all’estero. Stabilisce infatti, ai commi 2 e 3 dell’articolo unico, che «due persone maggiorenni dello stesso sesso costituiscono un’unione civile mediante dichiarazione di fronte all’ufficiale di stato civile e alla presenza di due testimoni», e che «l’ufficiale di stato civile provvede alla registrazione degli atti di unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso nell’archivio dello stato civile».

Il comma 28 delega il governo «ad adottare, entro sei mesi dalladata di entrata in vigore della presente legge, uno o più decreti legislativi in materia di unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso»; fra i principi ai quali la delega dovrà conformarsi vi è - fra gli altri - la previsione della «applicazione della disciplina dell’unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso regolata dalle leggi italiane alle coppie formate da persone dello stesso sesso che abbiano contratto all’estero matrimonio, unione civile o altro istituto analogo».

Che succede se un sindaco ritiene - come è - il regime dell’unione civile corrispondente in tutto e pertutto al regime dell’unione fra un uomo e una donna fondato sul matrimonio? Può rifiutare la celebrazione del il rito di avvio dell’unione? Che cosa potrà fare per evitare la trascrizione nei registri dello stato civile del matrimonio same sex contratto all’estero? Il Centro studi Livatino affronta la questione con un lungo e motivato documento, in larga parte redatto dal consigliere Giacomo Rocchi, giudice in Cassazione. Si tratta del gruppo di giuristi che in febbraio ha raccolto 600 firme fra giudici (anche costituzionali emeriti), docenti di materie giuridiche e avvocati in calce a un appello critico verso la legge, e che un mese fa, prima del voto definitivo alla Camera, ha inviato a tutti i deputati e al Capo dello Stato una memoria sui profili di illegittimità costituzionale e di intrinseca incoerenza delle nuove disposizioni. La questione dell’obiezione dipende dalla omissione nella legge Cirinnà di qualsiasi esplicito riferimento a essa.

.......

Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it

Una considerazione che copre di ridicolo la politica estera dell’Amministrazione Obama

Usa spostano l'obiettivo: i terroristi sono gli iraniani

di Gianandrea Gaiani

Dopo i documenti di impostazione strategica del Pentagono che indicano come minaccia globale per gli USA e i suoi alleati la Russia di Putin, scenario subito fatto suo anche dalla NATO, tocca ora al Dipartimento di Stato illustrare al mondo, in modo quasi comico, il punto sulla minaccia terroristica.

Il report dello staff di John Kerry parla chiaro: benché in Europa il 2015 sia stato l'anno in cui è esplosa nuovamente la paura di grandi attacchi terroristici, nel mondo il numero di attentati è diminuito del 13 per cento mentre le vittime sono calate del 14 per cento. Ciò nonostante per il Dipartimento di Stato il terrorismo "ha continuato ad evolversi rapidamente nel 2015, diventando sempre più decentralizzato e diffuso".

Del resto, pur se in calo, l’anno scorso gli attentati terroristici sono stati 11.774 in tutto il mondo e hanno causato oltre 28.300 morti e circa 35 mila feriti. Sono cinque i paesi più colpiti: Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, India e Afghanistan che insieme superano la metà delle vittime registrate in tutto il mondo anche se Iraq, Pakistan e Nigeria hanno registrato un calo rispetto al 2014.

“Lo Stato Islamico rimane la principale minaccia terroristica” sottolinea il rapporto precisando che ha perso terreno in Iraq e Siria, ma l'ha guadagnato in Egitto e Libia.

Al di là della fredda “fotografia” del fenomeno terroristico, il dato sconcertante che emerge dal rapporto del Dipartimento di Stato riguarda il Paese che più di ogni altro avrebbe sostenuto il terrorismo: l’Iran. Teheran "rimane il principale sponsor del terrorismo nel 2015" si legge nel rapporto. L’Iran ha fornito al terrorismo "un ampio supporto, finanziamenti, addestramento ed equipaggiamento a vari gruppi nel mondo, in particolare Hezbollah, oltre a sostenere conflitti in Iraq, Siria e violente proteste della minoranza sciita in Bahrein”.

..............

Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it

The largest jizyapayment in history:Iran receives $100-150 billion under the US-brokered Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

Dhimmi Nation
by A.J. Caschetta

Unedited version of an article that originally appeared under the title "Is Obama's Iran Deal a 'Dhimmi' Contract?"

IRGC Commander Ali Fadavi's recentthreat to "drown American vessels" in the Persian Gulf is only the latest indication that America's relationship with Iran resembles a dhimma contract more than a traditional foreign policy.

Since the seventh century, everyone defeated by Islamic conquest was given three choices: conversion, death, or adhimma contract, which Bat Ye'or calls the "treaty of submission for people conquered by jihad." By accepting the third choice, they became dhimmis – members of a "protected" class whose failure to submit to Allah was replaced by a compulsory submission to Muslims. Isolated and disarmed, insulted at every turn, and coerced into acknowledging their inferiority with regular self-abasement, dhimmis were expected to show humility and gratitude for their protectors.

The president's approach to the Muslim world in general has been replete with gratitude, flattery, and apologies – especially for violence perpetrated by Christians a thousand years ago. He refuses to utter the words "Islamist terrorism" and wildly exaggerates Islam's role in "saving" Western culture. At the UN he demanded that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." He even put one filmmaker in jail for doing so.

Obama's approach to the Muslim world has been replete with gratitude, flattery, and apologies.

But above all, throughout his presidency Obama has reached out to Iran, publically and in secret letters. His overtures may not be consciously designed to recapitulate a dhimmi's accommodation to his master, but Ali Khamenei treats them as such, offering only contempt in return for the president's obsequious deference.

Khamenei leads cheers of "Death to America," and Obama makes excuses for it. Obama insists that Iran's path forward is at the UN with the P5+1 partners, but Khamenei counters that "those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are...ignorant." Each unanswered Iranian provocation reinforces the image of a dhimmi paying tribute and enduring his proscribed submission with gestures of obeisance.

Since 2009 Iran has attempted an assassination in Washington, D.C., shipped arms to Palestinian terrorists in Gaza andHouthi rebels in Yemen, and attempted to hack a dam in New York and the electrical grid in California. The administration has responded with self-effacing conciliation. Even the film of captured American sailors humiliated by the IRGC didn't rouse the president from his supine repose. John Kerry actually thanked "the Iranian authorities for their cooperation."

And what of Iran's violations of sanctions, growing more flagrant with each passing year without consequences? Traditionally, the weaker side in such a conflict might deny it had conducted missile tests or pretend that its ICBM program is actually a space program. An emboldened, confident Iran, however, acts as though it has the upper hand and America is its dhimmi.




Dhimmis were forced to pay an annual tax called the jizya, originating in the Koran's commandment: "Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).


Among the humiliations dhimmis were forced to endure at the hands of Muslims was an annual tax called the jizya, originating in the Koran's commandment: "Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). As they made their payment,dhimmis were often required to prostrate themselves and accept slaps to the head and neck, symbolic of the fate they avoided with the treaty. In 1799 British historian William Eton referred to the jizya as a "capitation tax" permitting dhimmis to "wear their heads" for another year. The $100-150 billion Iran receives in under the US-brokered Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is surely the largest jizyapayment in history.

............

Read more: www.meforum.org

La gauche radicale cherche son nouveau logiciel

PC ou Mélenchon, même combat ? Pourquoi la gauche radicale peine à attirer vraiment les déçus du hollandisme

avec Sylvain Boulouque, Jean Petaux
En pleine recomposition idéologique depuis l'effondrement des références à l'Union soviétique, la gauche radicale cherche son nouveau logiciel. Et si en vue de 2017, certains comme Jean-Luc Mélenchon ont fait le pari de la scission avec le PS, le PCF, lui, raisonne toujours avec l'idée d'une union de la gauche en toile de fond.


Atlantico : Pierre Laurent a récemment accusé Jean-Luc Mélenchon d'organiser volontairement son premier meeting de campagne le jour de la clôture du congrès du PCF. Les deux figures de la gauche radicale sont en froid depuis que le co-président du Parti de gauche a annoncé sa candidature à la présidentielle en solo, alors que le PCF milite pour une primaire de la gauche. Que représente cette partie de l'échiquier politique située à la gauche du PS ?

Sylvain Boulouque : Tout d'abord, cette accusation de Pierre Laurent à l'égard de Jean-Luc Mélenchon est révélatrice des divergences entre les différents courants qui composent la gauche de la gauche. Avec d'une part un courant, le PCF, qui fonctionne encore sur le schéma ancien de l'union de la gauche, et qui n'élude pas la possibilité de se rallier au PS, notamment parce qu'il possède toujours un appareil municipal important, ce qui peut être utile dans la perspective des élections locales.

C'est ce qu'on voit, par exemple, à Paris avec la figure de Ian Brossat et de quelques autres. Dans un certain nombre de villes, le PS est obligé de s'allier au PCF, et ce dernier doit donc ménager son potentiel allié, ce qui implique de ne pas rompre tous les liens avec lui.

Et de l’autre côté, il y a Jean-Luc Mélenchon qui a complètement rompu les liens avec le PS...

....

Lire la suite: www.atlantico.fr

L´habit vert - 1 & 2 juillet : théâtre au profit de l'école Saint-Dominique au Pecq (78)

You do not understand the threat of the day if you do not know what Da’wah is.

In defense of dissidence

by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

A lecture delivered by Ayaan Hirsi Ali after she received the fourth Edmund Burke Award for Service to Culture and Society. - The following is an edited version of remarks delivered at The New Criterion’s gala on April 21, 2016 honoring Ayaan Hirsi Ali with the fourth Edmund Burke Award for Service to Culture and Society.

America: it’s an idea. I repeat it, it’s an idea. I’ve never felt more at home in any other place than in the United States of America. I’m at home with the idea of America. That doesn’t make me disloyal to being Somali or having lived in Kenya for several years. There are many things about Kenya and Nairobi that I’m attached to. I lived in The Netherlands and I was given a great deal of freedom. I couldn’t be who I am if I hadn’t happened to have lived in The Netherlands.

But there’s something that is unique and so exceptional about being in the United States of America and belonging to that idea of America. Four nights ago, I went to see Hamilton. Now, think about any other nation on the planet where you could have that kind of reflection on the founding fathers, all cast with African Americans and other minorities. Throughout, I thought, “I wish they were alive. I wish they could see this. I wish Thomas Jefferson could see this. I wish Alexander Hamilton could see how he was portrayed.” And maybe, in this audience, I am speaking to the choir. I know you appreciate how exceptional America is.

We have to pass on these ideas to the next generation. We often think about the next generation as our children. I have a four-year-old son. We’re teaching him about the flag and all, but he’s only interested in the swords and spears and the fighting process of it. But the next generation also includes immigrants. And we appreciate it more than you who are born here. In fact, I think that there are more immigrants willing to die for the idea of America than Millennials. I teach a class at Harvard, and there was someone who came to the Kennedy School, and he said, “I don’t care what America looks like 500 years from now. I don’t care if it’s dominated by Islam.” And I just thought, cringing, “Of course I care. I care. I don’t want the idea of America to be dominated by Islam.”

We have to pass on these ideas to the next generation.  

Do you know what Jihad is? Everybody knows what Jihad is. Do you know what Da’wah is? This is critical. We are almost fifteen years from 9/11, and most Americans, and most Europeans, know what Jihad is, but they don’t know what Da’wah is. Da’wah is the process of Islamization. Da’wah is the strategy of Islamizing every single aspect of society and politics to reflect Islamic law (Shariah). Da’wah is also what leads to Jihad. If you don’t know what Da’wah is, then you will never understand Jihad. Da’wah and jihad are linked, as the Dutch intelligence agency aivd noted in a 2004 report titled From Dawa to Jihad: “The network strategy, international missionary efforts, and the interaction or even interwovenness of Dawa and Jihad demonstrate the relationship between the various forms of radical Islam and the phenomenon of radical-Islamic terrorism.” The aivd defined the risk of da’awah to free, open societies as follows:

The Dawa-oriented forms of radical Islam are not necessarily violent by nature, but nevertheless they generate important security risks. Dawa is usually interpreted as “re-Islamisation” of Muslim minorities in the West. These minorities are seen as “oppressed brothers” who should be liberated from the “yoke of Western brainwashing.” The groups focusing on Dawa follow a long-term strategy of continuous influencing based on extreme puritanical, intolerant and anti-Western ideas. They want Muslims in the West to reject Western values and standards, propagating extreme isolation from Western society and often intolerance towards other groups in society. They also encourage these Muslims to (covertly) develop parallel structures in society and to take the law into their own hands. What they mean is that Muslims in the West should turn their backs on the non-Islamic government and instead set up their own autonomous power structures based on specific interpretation of the Sharia.

It should be noted, however, that da’wah efforts of Islamization are not limited to Muslim minorities in the West.

..............

Read more: www.newcriterion.com

Definitive biography: Hitler came to power in January 1933, enthroned by a ‘sinister plot’ of stupid elite politicians

Hopping in His Matchbox

by Neal Ascherson

“I am the greatest actor in Europe,” Hitler once bragged.



Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939 by Volker Ullrich

Werner Willikens was quite a senior Nazi civil servant. In the crushed and castrated government of Prussia, he had become the state secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was in February 1934, just over a year after Adolf Hitler had become chancellor, that Willikens made a speech to agriculture officials from all over the Reich, using words that have come in our own time to fascinate historians. ‘The Führer,’ he said, ‘finds it very difficult to bring about by order from above things which he intends to realise sooner or later.’ It was, therefore, ‘the duty of each one of us to try to work towards him in the spirit of the Führer’. The German, not easy to translate precisely, is ‘im Sinne des Führers ihm entgegenzuarbeiten’.

Willikens was not revealing some unknown fact. But he was offering posterity (as well as the party comrades in front of him) a really useful way of understanding how decisions were made in the Third Reich. ‘Working towards the Führer’ explains how many initiatives, including some of the worst, originated in the wider Nazi bureaucracy rather than with Hitler himself. And it can be argued that this commandment to second-guess and anticipate Hitler helped him to surf into ever more radical and terrible policies which are usually attributed to his invention alone.

As Volker Ullrich points out, there is an apparent contradiction here. On the one hand, the Leader’s will was supposed to be absolute and monocratic, and anyone who could claim convincingly that he was carrying out ‘the Führer’s will’ would get his way. On the other, a chaotic, ‘Darwinian’ struggle of overlapping Nazi institutions raged as each competed to make up Hitler’s mind for him. Behind all this was the weird, slovenly manner in which Hitler formed policies. Sometimes he made rapid and fateful choices and stuck to them (the Night of the Long Knives in 1934). But often he watched a policy emerge from some underling who thought he was ‘working towards the Führer’, and then adopted it as his own ‘irrevocable decision’. Occasionally, especially when someone close to him misbehaved, he would retire into a dither that could last for days, unable to make his mind up until prompted by his worried inner circle.

The first historian to seize on the ‘working towards the Führer’ interpretation seems to have been Ian Kershaw. Each in the procession of immense tomes of Adolf biography claims to be ‘definitive’, but Kershaw’s two volumes, ‘Hubris’ and ‘Nemesis’, still dominate more than 15 years after their publication. Commenting on Willikens, Kershaw said that ‘Hitler’s personalised form of rule invited radical alternatives from below and offered such initiatives backing, so long as they were in line with his broadly defined goals.’ Everyone who ‘worked towards’ him in this way, not only in the bureaucracy but throughout society, was ‘helping drive on an unstoppable radicalisation’.

Ullrich handsomely compliments Kershaw for seeing the significance of the phrase. He expounds it even more clearly when he writes that

those who wanted to get ahead in this system … had to anticipate the Führer’s will and take action to prepare and promote what they thought to be Hitler’s intentions. This not only explains why the regime was so dynamic but also why it became more and more radical. In competing for the dictator’s favour, his paladins tried to trump one another with ever more extreme demands and measures.

It could be said that the ‘Willikens Insight’ cuts Hitler’s personality down to a more manageable size. It shifts responsibility, if not away from him, then onto a much wider circle of German officialdom working in this curious machine of government-by-anticipation. And we know a lot now about Hitler as an individual. Published studies of the dictator are already said to number something like 120,000. The major biographies start with Konrad Heiden’s, written in Hitler’s lifetime, and go on through the works of Alan Bullock, Eberhard Jäckel and Joachim Fest to reach Ian Kershaw and now Ullrich’s large, steady book – again, the first of two projected volumes. So is it really Hitler’s personality and private life that we still need to know about? Who he was, and why he did what he did, must surely give precedence to how he managed to do it.


Kershaw clearly was troubled by these questions. ‘What has continued … to interest me more than the strange character of the man who held Germany’s fate in his hands between 1933 and 1945 is the question of how Hitler was possible,’ he wrote in his preface. He considered that Hitler had no ‘private life’, but instead ‘privatised’ the public sphere: his entire career was devoted to acting the Führer. Kershaw considered him ‘an empty vessel outside his political life’, unapproachable and incapable of friendship.

Ullrich doesn’t agree. He worries that depicting Hitler as lacking any private life perpetuates the view that his crimes were committed by a monster – not by a German or Austrian human being – and that this caricature unintentionally preserves the oldFührermythos in a negative form. He tries to show that Hitler did in fact have a private life, although a pretty boring one, and did have friends, most of them married couples where the wife would mother Adolf, feed him cream cakes and be rewarded with displays of ‘Austrian charm’.

When the book was published in Germany three years ago, some people objected that in ‘demythologising’ Hitler, Ullrich was presenting him as a mere ‘man without qualities’. This seems spiteful. Ullrich shows that this ‘strange character of a man’ possessed all kinds of qualities, not all of them bad in themselves and none of them unfamiliar to science or fiction. Admittedly, the most striking parts of his book are studies of Hitler among women or with his flaky nouveau-riche guests up at the Berghof, over Berchtesgaden. But these sections are embedded in a highly detailed and always interesting critical narrative of his political life, from youth in Linz, Vienna and Munich to his installation as chancellor in 1933 and on to the outbreak of the Second World War.

Ullrich has strong feelings about the way Hitler came to power in January 1933, enthroned by a ‘sinister plot’ of stupid elite politicians just at the moment when the Nazis were at last losing strength. It didn’t have to happen. He constantly reminds his readers that Hitler didn’t reach the chancellorship by his own efforts, but was put there by supercilious idiots who assumed they could manage this vulgarian. ‘We engaged him for our ends,’ said the despicable Franz von Papen. A year later, in the Night of the Long Knives, von Papen was grovelling to save his own neck.

......................

Read more: www.lrb.co.uk


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Hitler: The Ascent (1889-1939) by Volker Ullrich, review: 'chilling and superb'

by Miranda Seymour 

A superb biography of the Führer’s pre-war years reveals his split personality, says Miranda Seymour

"Education is irrelevant,” gushed Martin Heidegger in 1933, when the philosopher Karl Jaspers asked him whether a man as uneducated as Hitler could rule Germany. “Just look at those lovely hands!”

It is Volker Ullrich’s eye for quotation that makes his biography of Hitler – only the third, astonishingly, to have been published since the Führer’s death – so readable and compelling. Heidegger sounds as foolishly bewitched as Unity Mitford. In this first of two planned volumes, ending in March 1939 with the taking of Prague, we learn that Hitler’s hands were actually not “lovely”, but eerily languid. Contrast the pale fingers that privileged folk were allowed to clasp with Hitler’s rigid, uniformed arm (a daily chest-expanding regime enabled the dictator to maintain his toy-soldier salute for four hours at a stint) and we get a hint of the dual personality that Ullrich will uncloak.


“I am the greatest actor in Europe,” Hitler once bragged. We’ve become familiar with the actor’s masks. What – if anything – lay behind them? What did Hitler care about, beyond power? Was he capable of love? What were the origins of his irrational and unappeasable hatreds? For how much of the atrocity was he personally responsible? Such questions are crucial. Ullrich titles one chapter, entirely in earnest, “Hitler as a Human Being”.

............


Read more: www.telegraph.co.uk