Translate

sábado, 26 de noviembre de 2016

Cuba: Medio siglo de resistencia y víctimas católicas


Los «cristeros» cubanos, «una historia de héroes y mártires» bajo la larga dictadura de Fidel Castro





Armando Valladares, fray Miguel Ángel Loredo, Guillermo Fariñas, Oswaldo Payá: todos ellos católicos fieles, todos ellos víctimas de Fidel Castro.




ReL



El fallecimiento de Fidel Castro este 25 de noviembre resucita la memoria de infinidad de personas que fueron víctimas del régimen comunista que implantó en Cuba. Rescatamos para la ocasión el artículo publicado en ReL hace dos años, con ocasión de un encuentro en Miami entre represaliados y exiliados por la dictadura, a quienes se dirigió Gonzalo Altozano con un discurso que reproducimos en su integridad.

Todos los años, los presos políticos cubanos de la primera hora, los que más tiempo llevan exiliados de su país y acumulan historias más terribles de represión, tortura y cárcel en las prisiones del régimen comunista cubano, se reúnen en Miami para celebrar una oración dominical.

¿Por qué una oración dominical, y no una misa? Porque es evocación de cómo pasaban las fiestas de guardar en las prisiones de Fidel Castro, cuando no había un sacerdote. Entonces todos ellos, católicos encarcelados por su oposición al régimen, se reunían y rezaban, a pesar de que los carceleros se lo tenían prohibido.

Este año invitaron para intervenir en el acto al periodista español Gonzalo Altozano, en su día director del semanario Alba y conductor de Los últimos de Filipinas en Radio Intereconomía o de Dando caña o No es bueno que Dios esté solo en Intereconomía TV.

Precisamente le invitaba una de las personas que Altozano ha entrevistado sobre Dios,Ángel de Fana, quien pasó veinte años en la cárcel y es ahora uno de los dirigentes dePlantados hasta la Libertad y la Democracia en Cuba, un equipo de trabajo fundado en 1997 con el objetivo de acabar con el comunismo en el país, y que hace bandera de esa palabra, "plantados", como expresión de la actitud que adoptaron ante el régimen durante sus larguísima estancias carcelarias, de más de dos décadas en casi todos ellos.

Uno de los primeros colaboradores de Plantados fue Miguel Ángel Loredo (1938-2011), sacerdote franciscano que padeció la cárcel entre 1966 y 1976 y fue expulsado de Cuba en 1984. El padre Loredo fue el alma espiritual del grupo, y a él se refiere también Altozano en sus palabras, que por su interés, y por destacar algo que normalmente se oculta (el carácter específicamente anticristiano de la persecución política en Cuba), reproducimos a continuación en su integridad.

Intervención de Gonzalo Altozano en la oración dominical anual de Plantados
Me pide Ángel de Fana que os hable hoy aquí, y cuando Ángel de Fana me pide algo, me pongo en primer tiempo de saludo, como me enseñaron en la marina. Hablar durante las mismas fechas, desde el mismo escenario y ante el mismo público que Miguel Ángel Loredo durante muchos años hace buena la frase de que este es un honor que no me merezco.

Para vosotros, la figura de Loredo es una figura familiar, no para mí, que no llegué a conocerle en persona, y mucho menos para los que no saben quién fue (yo, al menos, sí he leído y oído mucho y muy bueno acerca de Loredo). Cuando tengo que explicar quién fue Loredo, digo que se trató de uno de esos hombres que logran individualizarse no con un artículo indeterminado, sino con un artículo determinado: Loredo no era un cura, Loredo era el cura. Era, además, el tipo de pastor con el que sueña para la Iglesia de hoy el papa Francisco: un pastor con olor a oveja, es decir, uno que no tiene miedo a ir en misión por los caminos fuera de los muros de la ciudad, hasta los suburbios y los extrarradios, incluso más allá.

El periodismo como apostolado

Antes de seguir, quiero aclarar que no soy sacerdote, soy periodista. Un periodista, eso sí, que entiende su vocación como una forma de apostolado. Y no quiero decir con esto que sea experto en periodismo religioso. Es verdad que durante tres años, entre otras tareas, firmé en la contraportada de una revista española -Alba- una entrevista semanal con personajes que hablaban de Dios.

Tras 150 entrevistas, seleccioné 101, las cuales fueron editadas, con cierto éxito de público y de ventas, en un libro. De los 20.000 ejemplares que se vendieron, me consta que uno cayó en manos del cardenal Ortega, arzobispo de La Habana. Me consta también que el cardenal Ortega disfrutó mucho con todas las entrevistas, con todas menos con una: la de Ángel de Fana. Si alguna vez Ángel dudó de si el camino iniciado hace ya tantos años era el correcto -y yo creo que nunca ha dudado- las palabras de Ortega debieron de confirmarle que sí, que era el correcto.

Con lo de entender mi profesión como una misión quiero decir que no me metí en la cosa esta del periodismo para encerrarme en una redacción a cortar y pegar teletipos, despachos de agencia, ni, en el mejor de los casos, para colarme en el camerino de las estrellas de Hollywood. Me metí en esto del periodismo para contar las cosas de otra manera o, al menos, intentarlo.

Desde niño, siempre me sublevó la tendencia de narrar la Historia con los burócratas, los canallas y los tiranos como protagonistas y los disidentes, los héroes y los mártires como personajes secundarios. Consciente de mis muchas y enormes limitaciones, mi propósito no era revertir esta tendencia, pero sí, al menos, salirme del carril, ir en dirección contraria si fuera preciso.

Por eso, cuando hace ya unos años me hablaron por primera vez de vuestra epopeya, pensé que merecería la pena dedicar el tiempo y el dinero que fueran precisos a contar aquella historia de disidentes, héroes y mártires. Porque la vuestra es, ante todo, una historia de disidentes, de héroes y de mártires.


Ángel de Fana, veinte años de cárcel a sus espaldas.

Auténtica persecución religiosa

Cuando Ángel me pidió que hablara hoy aquí, me lo planteó en términos de predicación, lo cual me alegra, porque la predicación no ha de ser privilegio de curas, sino también obligación de laicos. Así que dejaré en un segundo plano el lado disidente y heroico del presidio político cubano, que conocéis mejor que nadie, y me centraré en lo que tuvo de martirio, que también conocéis bien. Quien dude de que en Cuba ha habido persecución religiosa, solo tiene que preguntar a Ricardo Toledo, que pasó diez años en la cárcel solo por asistir a una procesión, la de la Caridad. Luego a Ricardo le fabricarían pruebas y le imputarían delitos que nunca existieron, pero todos sabéis que, como se lo propongan, los comunistas son capaces de acusar y condenar a uno por ser el toro que mató a Manolete.

Pero el caso de Toledo no solo ilustra el uso castrista y, por tanto, arbitrario del Derecho, sino que Dios escribe derecho con renglones torcidos, que sus designios son inescrutables y que de un mal es capaz de sacar un bien mayor. En el fragor de aquella accidentada procesión (accidentada porque así lo quisieron los comunistas), Ricardo conoció a Neida, una linda muchachita que, cincuenta años después, se sienta a su lado hoy aquí. Para que luego digan que el amor no es para siempre.


La célebre foto del fusilamiento de Cornelio Rojas en 1959. Así instauró y afianzó el comunismo su poder sobre Cuba.

La persecución religiosa en Cuba se encuadra en un marco general de persecuciones que tuvieron lugar en todo el mundo a lo largo del siglo XX. En España, mi país, por ejemplo, el odium fidei, el odio a la fe desatado por la izquierda en los años treintale costó la vida a no pocos obispos, cantidad de sacerdotes e incontables católicos de a pie, dejando chiquita la persecución del emperador Diocleciano en el siglo IV. Y, sin embargo, Roma, a través de numerosos procesos de beatificación y canonización, no solo elevó a los altares a tantísimos mártires, sino que reconoció una evidencia histórica y, no menos importante, ayudó a sanar unas heridas abiertas en lo más hondo de un tiempo y de un país. Y lo mismo hizo en otros lugares, como México o los países del Este, escenarios también de sangrientas persecuciones.

En Cuba, sin embargo, hasta donde yo sé -y digo “hasta donde yo sé” pues no querría pecar de falta de rigor- la Iglesia no ha llevado a cabo esa labor de señalamiento y reparación, es más, la diplomacia vaticana parece empeñada en la ostpolitik, la política de la no confrontación con los países comunistas que tan pocos frutos dio bajo los pontificados de Juan XXIII y Pablo VI.

.........

Leer más aquí: www.religionenlibertad.com

A un ricevimento che Castro aveva organizzato in occasione della visita papale ...


Quando Castro mi chiese quale tipo di pesce moltiplicò Gesù

Di Lorenzo Albacete

Un articolo apparso su Tempi, in cui Albacete raccontò lo scambio di battute col feroce dittatore cubano, scomparso oggi

E’ morto Fidel Castro, rivoluzionario comunista e feroce dittatore cubano (leggete la nostra recente intervista a Armando Valladares, prigioniero di coscienza per 22 anni). Qui di seguito vi riproponiamo un passaggio di un articolo che Lorenzo Albacete scrisse su Tempi nell’agosto 2006.
Al tempo del viaggio a Cuba di Giovanni Paolo II fui invitato dal governo dell’Avana (apparentemente per un articolo che avevo scritto per il New Yorker) a partecipare a un ricevimento che Castro aveva organizzato per i vescovi americani in occasione della visita papale. Nel mio articolo avevo evitato argomenti politici e mi ero concentrato sulla visione religiosa di Castro, che gli derivava dall’educazione presso i gesuiti.

Quando gli fui presentato come teologo, mi guardò e chiese: «Mi dica, i teologi hanno scoperto che tipo di pesce moltiplicò Gesù?». Non sapevo come interpretare questa domanda. Era serio? Si stava prendendo gioco della teologia? Dopo un momento di silenzio risposi: «Erano orate rosse». Castro sorrise: «Non ci sono orate rosse in quelle acque». E io replicai: «Beh, questo è parte del miracolo!». Fortunatamente gli piacque la mia risposta e rise. Ma aveva un’altra domanda, «una seria»: «Perché ci sono più conversioni in Africa che in Cina?». Per gli africani, spiegai, è più facile accettare la presenza del divino nell’umano (l’Incarnazione) visto che il loro senso religioso è più “naturacentrico” mentre all’Est il senso religioso è totalmente scisso da spazio e materia. Castro ci pensò su e osservò: «I gesuiti non me l’hanno mai detto». Risposi: «Bè, io sono andato a una scuola cattolica». Fortunatamente rise ancora. Poi promisi che gli avrei mandato un libro sul senso religioso che avrebbe trovato interessante. E così feci: quando tornai a New York gli mandai il libro di don Luigi Giussani autografato.


..........

Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it

How thick are the boundaries which separate one historical era from another?


Facts Do Not Train Affections, Subjective Judgments Do


by Joshua Gibbs

“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth…”

I. How thick are the boundaries which separate one historical era from another? Who can say when the Medieval era became the Renaissance? What has the authority to declare the beginning of the Reformation?

Historians love to argue over periodization, the art and science of describing historical epochs. Some date the Medieval era from the sack of Rome, some date the Medieval era from Pope Gregory in the late 6th century, and some argue that “the Medieval era” unfairly, unnaturally binds together too many disparate and incompatible threads of history. There was no Medieval era, really.

A great many historians are leery of heavily demarcating one era from another. The periods of history are not like the periods of a hockey game. There was no buzzer which sounded at the end of the Medieval era. There was no brief intermission between the Medieval and the Renaissance wherein subsistence farmers walked from their hillside homes into previously unoccupied cities and resumed their lives, now become sellers and tinkerers. The prudent historian recognizes that the shift from one epoch to another is glacial, massive, and that the tenants of an epoch are constantly up for revision. History does not move homogenously forward. The effects of “the Renaissance” may have been felt more acutely in one Italian city long before another, or else Russia might have remained Medieval long after the Reformation. Given the circuitous path of news, it is possible the first shot of World War III was fired weeks ago and that we will not know about it for several years, or historians of the future may determine that WWIII came and went sometime between 9/11 and Obama’s reelection.

While I recognize the difficulties of periodization, as a teacher of history to high school students, I have relied heavily on periodization. At worst, periodization is still helpful in establishing frameworks for study. A child’s catechism and a grad student’s catechism may have many points of departure. I teach my little girls that God “lives everywhere,” but I teach my philosophy students that “God is beyond place, for God is place itself.” While drawing thick, heavy lines between Late Antique and Medieval, early on as a teacher, at very least, I always thought to myself that my work was sufficient for high school students and that, if any went off to study history in college, they would gain a far more nuanced understanding of how one era gives way to another.

However, more than a decade into my career as a teacher, I have slowly found myself comfortable with the heavy lines. I have read painstaking mosaics of epochal shifts (Hillerbrand’s work on the 16th century, say) and found them immensely valuable, and yet that value is of curious relation to the realm of theology and ontology— what man is, as opposed to what he does or has. Eight or nine years ago, I was speaking with a devoutly secularist friend about V For Vendetta. “The film was quite alarmist,” I said, and then, “It’s not as though homosexuality is going to be banned by the government anytime soon. Your people are winning the political end of the argument, after all.” With unfeigned confusion, he replied, “What? Wrong. The homosexual community is under eminent threat by the government. The film will prove prescient.” We both assumed the other side was obviously on the ascendant. 


Viewing the fallout from the latest election cycle, it seems man is genuinely incapable of reading the progress of history in any kind of reasonable manner. Regardless of where you place your sympathies, we think in terms of the Golden Age and the Dark Age. The average man is incapable of arranging “the facts” in such a way that he judges the world to be merely carrying on as it always does. I worked in market research for years and, while conducting political surveys, regularly asked people, “Is the country headed in the right direction, or have things gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?” I never once heard a person balk at the options. While some historians sketch out the minutiae of change and hesitate to make judgments about this era becoming that era, the layman views history as a spiritual story. In the same way you must convince the layman there is no god, so you must convince him there is no god of the age. We believe in the divine as naturally as we believe in the zeitgeist.

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

Read more: www.circeinstitute.org

We are frequently informed that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic


50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated

by Dave Armstrong


Here are 50 reasons why Luther was excommunicated in 1521.

A Lutheran once asked me: “Why was Martin Luther excommunicated? In what way was he heterodox?” Luther was excommunicated in 1521. The radically anti-traditional nature ofmany (not all) of Luther’s opinions (at least in their early stages) is clearly evident in his three great treatises of 1520: especially in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation andThe Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

I'm not presently trying to defend the rightness or wrongness of Catholic teaching, but rather, demonstrating that Luther was “heterodox” or “heretical” by the criterion of Catholic teaching. Based directly on statements in these two works, I summarize below how Luther was indisputably heterodox by 1520: judged by existing Catholic theological standards.

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Rejection of seven deuterocanonical books.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. Sola Scriptura and radically private judgment: “if we are all priests . . . why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith?”
9. Denial that the pope has the right to call a council.
10. Only justified men can do good works.
11. Denial of the sacrament of ordination.
12. Denial of exclusively priestly absolution. Anyone in the Christian community can grant absolution.
13. God has not instituted the office of bishop.
14. God has not instituted the office of the papacy.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes: “The pope should have no authority over the emperor”.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority.
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. God has not instituted the vocation of monk
25. Feast days should be abolished.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial that the Mass is a good work.
35. Denial that the Mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. The seven sacraments lack any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to grant them.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (the only two sacraments are baptism and the Eucharist).

It is absolutely evident that Luther was heretical and that the Church was under no obligation to even contend with him at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and equally obvious that the Church should demand that he recant, renounce, and cease teaching these things. He refused, because (as he in effect implied, many times) he knew more than the Church. But no Protestant body would have acted any differently, then or now, in the face of 50 (!) rejections of its own stated doctrines.

What was the alternative? We are supposed to believe that the Church should have said, “Luther, you’re right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your superior, heaven-sent wisdom and change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much for informing us of all these errors!”

We are frequently informed that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect.

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


The Everlasting Caesar: Why There Will Not Be a Post-Secular Future



Essays of the Week




by George Stanciu
Patriotism—the love of place, countrymen, and local traditions—lasted for millennia, until replaced by nationalism, which first appeared in seventeenth-century England. Nationalism is so prevalent in Modernity that we believe it is a natural outgrowth of tribal life, instead of an invention of Western Europe that was exported to the rest of the world. Made in the image of the Nation-State, citizens obtain their rights not from God or nature but from their nation. Unlike medieval men and women, who thought of themselves as Christians, subjects of a king or lord, and members of a village community, Western men and women in the twentieth-first century, with few exceptions, think of themselves as citizens of a nation, as Englishmen, Americans, Germans, Belgians, Serbs, or some other invented group. They speak of my country and feel pride or shame in their country’s actions... [MORE]


by Bradley J. Birzer
Whatever successes the Founders had, however, one grand mistake has hampered the effectiveness of the American republic to resist the tyranny of democratic sentiments and democratic despotism as it emerged in the nineteenth and, then, the twentieth centuries. In particular, the Founders failed to restrict the executive and prevent it from becoming the very tyranny they opposed in the British monarch. Indeed, our president today is far more powerful than George III ever imagined himself to be. The presidency is, simply put, out of control, both in the actual workings of the executive branch and in the minds of its adherents among the populace. More worrisome, though, is that the American people—conservative, liberal, and otherwise—have come to see the president as the embodiment of their hopes, their dreams, and their nightmares. Far more worrisome, this seems to have become the default position—a poor habit, but one now deeply rooted in the American psyche... [MORE]


by G.M. Curtis and Lenore T. Ealy
Over the years one of the most satisfying ways people have found to travel back is to bypass historians and read what the people who came before us left for us to read. One of the most compelling sources has been personal letters, particularly collections that have concentrations on specific time periods. It is rare and endlessly gratifying to have a collection of letters of two friends.  Something quite special can happen as one takes up this conversation. Despite the passage of time, even the modern reader can begin to join in as a party to this distant conversation. This reader slowly but surely becomes attached to the letter writers in such a way that gradually they lose the trappings of strangers in some history book and become real, immediate. Intellectually and emotionally the modern reader begins to walk in a different world. The reader begins to understand what gave these people joy; what caused them to weep; who were their friends and enemies; what were their political and constitutional convictions; and how they came to understand... [MORE]


by Joseph Pearce
What we are witnessing is only the latest chapter in the ongoing war between the culture of life and the culture of death. Insofar as the advocates of infanticide were defeated in the US election, the culture of life won a historic victory. It is, however, the winning of one battle in a very long war. It is not the winning of the war and it is dangerous to act as though it were. Furthermore, should the war against secularism eventually be won, the secularism thus defeated will morph into another manifestation of the secularist spirit. The truth is that the spirit of the world, the secular, cannot be defeated, except in the hearts of individuals, and even then it can be defeated only by the grace of God. Caesar, like the poor, is always with us and it’s naïve to believe that he can be overthrown. If we kill one Caesar, he is replaced by another in his own image. If one Caesar, by the grace of God, is converted, he will be succeeded by a new Caesar who will restore the status quo ante... [MORE]

by Peter Kalkavage
Although music transcends the world of things, it is also deeply connected with that world. The four parts of a string quartet or chorus capture in symbolic form the four natural grades of the will’s self-objectification. The bass part is the analogue of inorganic nature, the tenor and alto parts of plant and animal, respectively. As for the soprano or melody Schopenhauer writes: “in the melody, in the high singing, principal voice, leading the whole and progressing with unrestrained freedom, in the uninterrupted significant connexion of one thought from beginning to end, and expressing a whole, I recognize the highest grade of the will’s objectification, the intellectual life and endeavour of man.” Melody, the mythos and symbol of human life, “relates the story of the intellectually enlightened will, the copy or impression whereof in actual life is the series of its deeds.” Even death finds its correlate in the world of tones. Death in music occurs in modulation, where a key-change “entirely abolishes the connection with what went before.”  To sum up, there is nothing in the natural world, or in the inner and outer life of man, that does not find its counterpart in the all-embracing realm of tones. Music as symbol is the whole of all things...  [MORE]


















Support The Imaginative Conservative

Weekly newsletter CapX, from the Centre for Policy Studies.


There's a world beyond Brexit and Trump

by Robert Colvile

The news we tend to consume is, understandably, the news that’s closest to home.

That’s why there was wall-to-wall coverage in the UK this week of Philip Hammond’s Autumn Statement, and why the progress of Brexit is followed so avidly.

Likewise, we follow events in America because the US is still the country that matters most. Brexit will reshape Britain’s place in the world - but the election of Donald Trump will reshape the world full stop.

Yet the result of this is that our media diet gets distorted. Stories like Brexit and Trump become soap operas that dominate the schedules night after night.

And there’s another bias, too: towards pessimism. Humans are programmed to have their attention caught by drama and disaster – and to place greater weight on pessimistic than optimistic analyses.

So even if you made an effort this week to escape the latest news from Washington, or the arguments over whether Brexit has torpedoed Britain’s economy (played out on CapX as elsewhere), you would have found a rich diet of doom and gloom: corruption in South Africa, economic collapse in Venezuela,violence in Mexico, election fraud in Somalia, terrorism in Iraq.

But there are two points to bear in mind – both something of a mantra here at CapX.

The first is that good things are still happening – not just in the particular but in the aggregate.

As commentators like Fraser Nelson and our friends at HumanProgress.org keep pointing out, the world is not just getting better, but doing so at a startling clip. Between 2002 and 2013, to give just one example, the proportion of humanity living in extreme poverty more than halved.

The second point to make is that there is no mystery about this process. The world is getting better because the market works. And the places where things are going wrong are very often – in fact, almost invariably – those where the market is not working.

This, arguably, is the central human tragedy of our times. We know what improves people’s lives: personal freedom, economic freedom, property rights, the rule of law. The countries that are failed or failing are overwhelmingly those where these principles were never established, or have been eroded from above or from below.

There is, in other words, grounds not just for optimism - but for putting our free-market shoulders to the wheel. After all, in a world where a self-professed Thatcherite can become favourite for French president, anything is possible.

Here are our favourite stories from the week. Have a great weekend.

Robert Colvile
Editor, CapX



François Fillon: The man bringing Thatcher to France

By Gaspard Koenig

For years, France's Thatcherites have been a tiny, barely tolerated sect - viewed with the same condescending scorn as enthusiasts for cannibalism or sado-masochism. Imagine the surprise of the establishment, then, when Nicolas Sarkozy's former PM won a crushing primary victory on a platform of firing civil servants, slashing spending and rolling back the frontiers of the state. Could France finally be waking from its lethargy?

Why won't we recognise the benefits of migration?

By Philippe Legrain

The British government has promised to crack down on immigration. Yet public concern is not just misplaced, but wildly so. Far from harming Britain, migration brings significant cultural and financial benefits, injecting dynamism and diversity into our economy and society. Yes, we need to adjust the rules - but if we seek to be a champion of free trade, we should have no truck with labour-market protectionism.

The Paris agreement was never the solution to climate change

By Bjorn Lomborg

Whether or not Donald Trump sticks to it, the Paris agreement will have very little effect on global temperature change. Even if every country were to make every single carbon cut suggested under this costliest of treaties, emissions would only fall by 1 per cent of the required amount - and with billions in dire need of better food, water, education and health, it is frankly immoral to spend money on solar panels instead.

Western capitalism is broken – here’s how to fix it

By Fredrik Erixon & Bjorn Weigel

For all that we fetishise innovation, Western capitalism has turned - in many areas - into a club with lifetime membership rights. And where nothing is destroyed, nothing is created. In an exclusive extract from their provocative new book The Innovation Illusion, Erixon & Weigel argue that capitalism has got too grey and too bureaucratic - but also that this stagnation is far from inevitable.

Why collective guilt is never a good idea

By Daniel Hannan

The entire nation mourned when the much-loved MP Jo Cox was killed earlier this year. Yesterday, Thomas Mair was sentenced to life for her murder. Naturally, people are seeking a reason for the mindless killing - but to suggest, as one journalist did this week, that the entire Leave campaign is indirectly to blame for one sick man's act was dangerous and wrong.

USA - Congress has increasingly abdicated its lawmaking responsibility, delegating its power


The Bureaucracy Is Now More Powerful Than Congress


by Gary Galles


Who creates federal laws? Civics books say it is Congress, but the real answer today may be the executive branch. Earlier this year, James Gattuso and Diane Katz reported that just the 229 major regulations issued since 2009 added over $100 billion in annual costs (according to the regulatory agencies), $22 billion coming in 2015. With estimates of the total regulatory costs now exceeding income tax burdens at over $2 trillion annually, regulations were far more burdensome for many Americans than legislation.

Unfortunately, missing from this process is accountability to citizens. In response, some members of Congress have turned to supporting the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny" (REINS) Act, which would require Congress to approve major regulations before they could take effect.

Why is this necessary when the US Constitution specifically assigns alllegislative powers to Congress? Because Congress has increasingly abdicated its lawmaking responsibility, delegating its power through vague laws and mandates to executive agencies, which then impose and enforce the actual regulations that legally bind Americans.

The REINS Act, by allowing major regulations to take effect only if passed by Congress, would end the effective delegation of legislative power to regulatory bureaucrats and restore some of the Constitution’s eroded separation of powers. It would offer some real political accountability, by moving us back toward Americans’ earlier understanding of legislative powers, gutted in U.S. v. Grimand (1911) and subsequent court rulings.

Before Grimand, Congress had already begun giving administrative agencies power to formulate specific rules to implement Congress’ general policy objectives. But in Grimand, the Supreme Court gave such administrative rulings the full force of law, with delegation mushrooming since.

The result has been ever-growing power for federal bureaucrats, enacted through reams of rules, imposing massively large costs on Americans. But bureaucrats need not clearly spell out their policies and their consequences to the public, much less submit themselves for voter approval. And whenever a scandal reveals some regulatory abuse or failure, politicians hide from their responsibility by blaming the bureaucrats they delegated the power to and then failed to effectively oversee.

There is another very practical reason for reining in our current Pandora’s Box of congressional delegation. The fact that legislators must leave policy details vague — to be filled in later by others — illustrates how members of Congress don’t know enough about the problems they’re supposedly addressing.

To adequately address a societal problem requires detailed knowledge of the problem and the specifics of how it will be “fixed.” But legislators who had really mastered such details would trumpet them at every opportunity to ensure they got credit. So, when they delegate policy details to agency bureaucrats, they reveal they do not know the specifics of a workable solution.

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

Read more: mises.org