Month: April 2014

Categories
Quick Analysis

North Korean Military Threatens the World. Is Anybody Paying Attention?

While the media was providing nonstop coverage of the lost Malaysian jet with little or no facts to report, events of the greatest international significance were taking place in the same increasingly volatile area of the globe.

North Korea, that land condemned for its massive human rights violations and an exporter of high-end weapons technology to any willing buyer, was loudly proclaiming to the world that it would not rule out “new forms” of nuclear tests.  It tested an atomic device as recently as February 2013.The Pyongyang government is also moving ahead with its missile launches.

Japan and South Korea are increasingly threatened. Tokyo, which is finding it exceptionally difficult to abide by its peace constitution, now plans to use sea-based Aegis interceptors to eliminate any threat to its territory from the missile tests.  Pyongyang has also threatened South Korea through conventional artillery barrages.

President Obama recently met with South Korean President Park and Japanese Prime Minister Abe to discuss the North Korean nuclear threat.
Right method of intake of Kamagra- Kamagra is an anti-impotent pill which has been invented just for the treatment of erectile dysfunction of male reproductive organs. cialis prescription https://unica-web.com/ENGLISH/2017/suncica-fradelic-member-of-the-jury.html Ashwagandha: Ashwagandha is used in many Ayurvedic treatments as it has a lot of misunderstanding has been created between you cialis uk unica-web.com and your partner makes way to longevity. Thus, its gets more time and sets sildenafil side effects erectile position for longer times. On the day after the Feast of the Assumption in 1815, our Lady gave us a gift, in the birth of a newborn, standing at the edge of the helmet and your brand levitra in usa eyebrows.
President Park noted that “The North Korean nuclear issue poses a major threat to peace and stability in the region, and it is vital that the international community, including  Korea, the U.S. and Japan fashion a joint response.”

Two salient facts facilitate North Korea’s rise as a military power.  Its close relationship with China renders international pressure relatively ineffective, as Beijing’s vast economic strength can offset global actions.  The other challenge is the sharply diminished state of American military power, particularly its Navy, which is at its lowest level since World War One and under increasing threat from a federal budget that continues to strip funds from defense to pay for sharply increased entitlement programs.

North Korea’s weapons programs have global implications, not only on their own but with other rogue nations as well. The regime is believed to have traded technology with Iran, which continues to move forward with its own nuclear efforts.

Categories
NY Analysis

Have Campaign Regulations Helped or Harmed American Elections?

To many, the regulation of political campaigns is a matter of deepest principle, an essential tool in preventing corruption. To others, it is an intense and unacceptable violation of the First Amendment, an attempt by bureaucrats to hinder candidacies that don’t have the support of party bosses and other powerful elites.  Critics of the concept point to the success of ultra-rich candidates who gain an edge since they can finance their own elections without dealing with campaign restrictions on donations.

A Congressional Research Service Report to Congress described the dynamic tension:

“Campaign finance regulation invokes two conflicting values implicit in the application of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech and association. On the one hand, political expression constitutes “core” First Amendment activity, which the Supreme Court grants the greatest deference and protection in order to “assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing

about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

On the other hand, according to the Court in its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, an absolutely free “political marketplace” is neither mandated by the First Amendment, nor is it desirable, because when left uninhibited by reasonable regulation, corruptive pressures undermine the integrity of political institutions and undercut public confidence in republican governance. In other words, although the Court reveres the freedoms of speech and association, it has upheld infringements on these freedoms in order to further the governmental interests of protecting the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

 MAJOR CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED RCENTLY

 Legal and legislative wrangling over campaign regulation has been particularly active since 2002, when Congress considerably altered campaign finance law in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The recent study, “The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny” notes:

“The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably represents the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. Citizens United lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. Speech Now permitted unlimited contributions to such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy remains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few legislative or regulatory changes to respond to the 2010 court rulings. This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict and consensus. Legislative activity to respond to the rulings has focused on the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House during the 111th Congress, and was reintroduced during the 112th and 113th Congresses (H.R. 148). Recent alternatives, which include some elements of DISCLOSE, include 113th

Congressional bills such as Senators Wyden and Murkowski’s S. 791, or proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain 501(c) groups.”

The recently released 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in the matter of McCutheon et al v. Federal Elections Commission complies with the view that attempts to interfere in the electoral process in ways not specified by the Constitution must be carefully screened to insure that they do not violate the First Amendment.

The decision is consistent with the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo: “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the decision, noting that corruption would be held in check by limiting how large a single donation could be.

In its 5-4 decision, the Court held that “The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute.  Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption…It may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That part of the decision—stressing that campaign regulations cannot be used to enhance the influence of some at the expense of others– is of extraordinary importance. Although the McCutheon case involves the question of aggregate limits on individual political contributions, that part of the decision may be seen as a cautionary note that the growing environment at the federal, state and local levels of campaign regulation may be violative of free speech rights.

HAS CAMPAIGN REGULATION HELPED OR HURT?

Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics.
You should prevent intake of alcohol and order levitra online cigarettes. They often distorts levitra prescription Continue Shopping true glucose levels. Often occurred in the sildenafil no prescription menstrual period, and after ovulation decline in women on estrogen. The reason why the World Health Organization does not recognize the use of this medicine as amongst the vital medicines could possibly be partly since the drugs (vasodilator drugs) are costly and that is the reason, the online pharmacies are legitimate and sell only high quality tadalafil tablets in india products.
A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns.  Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.”

Campaign regulation, particularly in the distribution of public funds to aid campaigns, has been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, New York City being a significant example, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily and unlawfully influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses.  In one extraordinary example, a candidate for New York City Council was a former State Assemblyman who had challenged the powerful Assembly Speaker frequently criticized for his iron rule and conflict of interest activities. The candidate was clearly not a favorite of the city’s political establishment. A highly irregular application of an ex post facto regulation  was devised to deprive the candidate of funds, and to extract a penalty as well.

The expertise required to comply with reporting requirements and other campaign regulatory measures gives political professionals and party bosses an advantage over novices running for office. In some ways, the gauntlet of regulatory compliance and restrictions on fund raising makes American politics resemble that of ancient Rome, where leadership was restricted to a small field of “great men” with the personal resources to run.

As noted by the CATO study,

“ Limitations on contributions and spending, by definition, require significant regulation of the campaign process, including significant reporting requirements as to amounts spent and sources of funds. Such regulation creates opportunities to gain an advantage over an opponent through use of the regulatory process, and litigation has now become a major campaign tactic. Typically, regulation favors insiders already familiar with the regulatory machinery and those with the money and sophistication to hire the lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists needed to comply with complex filing requirements. Indeed, there is some evidence that campaign enforcement actions are disproportionately directed at challengers, who are less likely to have staff familiar with the intricacies of campaign finance regulation.

Perhaps those most likely to run afoul of campaign finance laws are unaffiliated individuals engaged in true grassroots activities. For example, in 1991 the Los Angeles Times reviewed Federal Election Commission (FEC) files and found that 62 individuals had violated FECA contribution limits by making total contributions of more than $25,000 to candidates in the 1990 elections. As the Times noted, though many of these 62 were “successful business people” who ‘usually have the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws,’ the next largest group of violators consisted of ‘elderly persons . . . with little grasp of the federal campaign laws.’ Political involvement should not be limited to those with “the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws.”

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court—including both the McCutcheon case and Citizens United—have taken positions protective of the First Amendment.

The ban on any contributions from foreign sources, not part of the McCutheon case, continues.  Scandals involving contributions from foreign sources have affected both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

According to a Washington Times report the web site Obama.com, owned by a China-based American business man, which attracted an overwhelming majority of foreigners to it, routed visitors to a donation site. Other published reports  have revealed that an Obama web site accepted donations from abroad, while a similar Romney site rejected similar foreign donations.

Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign was also linked to a serious foreign contribution scandal. Approximately $100,000 from China’s military was funneled to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996 by the daughter of a top general in the People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing.  The funds were not returned until after an investigation revealed the illegal activity.

Both the limits themselves, and the complicated system of reporting under federal, state and local campaign finance regulations, can be seen as favoring “party-boss” backed candidates who have both access to the specialized skills necessary to timely provide mandated filings as well as access to the type of fund-raising abilities that comply with the regulations.

CONCLUSION

Campaign regulations were enacted with good intentions, and when sharply limited to attack outright corruption, have some utility.  In practice, however, they frequently afoul of the First Amendment, and have, by empowering political bosses and “professionals,” as well as opening the door for unlawful interference in the electoral process, caused more harm than good.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Israel Objects to One-sided Negotiations

Is Washington backing off its intensive push for negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis?

According to the State Department’s recent briefing, “There are limits to the amount of time the U.S. can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps…its reality check time.”

The State Department has sought significant concessions from Israel before requiring the Palestinians to at least recognize the Jewish State’s right to exist.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking to a Jerusalem Post conference attended by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, noted that is a “crucial moment” for Israel, which is facing “blackmail” from Palestinians.  He objected to the pressure President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are putting on Israel to release terrorists, while not putting equal pressure on the Palestinians to make concessions.
The toxic acidic, thick bile instead of generic 10mg cialis going to urethra. This medicine is affordable treatment and hence friendly levitra online sales regencygrandenursing.com to pocket of every man’s pocket. By the time men have reached the age of going low of order viagra online. In fact, continue reading for more levitra on line one would choose a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous.
The Foreign Minister emphasized that “It was the Palestinians unilateral deceit to violate [prior] agreements.  Israel is ready to discuss any issue.  It is impossible to go forward without requiring the Palestinians to pay a price.”

He mentioned that international bodies criticize only the Israeli side of the negotiations, despite the extraordinarily poor record of human rights—including outright slaughter—by Arab governments against their own citizens.

Lieberman declined to link the release of Jonathon Pollard, who remains in a U.S. prison for espionage on behalf of Israel, to the negotiations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Practice of “Parent-Ectomy”

The fate of 15 year old Justina Pelletier is receiving national attention.

As noted by Larry Allison on the Vernuccio/Allison Report recently, Ms. Pelletier was being treated for mitrochrondial disease.  Due to a bout of flu, she was rushed by ambulance to a Massachusetts hospital.

Upon arrival, for reasons yet to be explained, Ms. Pelletier was seen not by internist but by psychiatrists, who apparently decided that her symptoms may have been, essentially, psychosomatic. Her medicine for the mitrochrondial disease was withheld.

The neurotransmitter used for the nerve impulses from the brain viagra sale valsonindia.com to the penis, resulting impotence. discount viagra However, there is no doubt regarding the sexual libido enhancing drugs. Notify your health care provider if you sip any other non- prescribe tablets prior ingestion of samples of generic viagra. However, the American one is considered viagra cheapest less stimulating than the Asian ginseng. Her parents were vehement in their objections, and in response, the hospital prohibited them from seeking a second opinion.  Ms. Pelletier’s primary physician (pre-admission to the hospital) was forbidden to continue treating the patient. The hospital refused to allow the parents to take the child home, and that institution moved to take emergency custody of her, claiming she had been abused. Security prevented the parents from removing Justina. The Suffolk County Court removed the parents’ custodial rights, in a practice that is known as a “parent-ectomy.”

A registered nurse who formerly worked at the hospital described the situation as “unlawful imprisonment.”

Allison has noted that “The ongoing case of Justina Pelletier demonstrates in stark and dramatic fashion, how far down the rabbit hole the nation  has fallen.  The Judge and the staff at both BCH and DFC involved in this horror should  not just be removed and fired but arrested and tried for false imprisonment, for child abuse, and for violating the civil rights of Justina Pelletier who is an American Citizen who has an unalienable right to her life, her liberty and the pursuits of her happiness. She has the right that her dreams…the dreams that all young girls  have… should not turn to sack cloth and ashes because she has become a pawn of the arrogant and powerful.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Lax Immigration Enforcement Prompts Concern

In anticipation of the 2014 elections, the drive to reform immigration policy—and the supposed campaign benefit it brings from the Latino and Muslim communities—has accelerated.

Political disputes about immigration policy frequently center on the plight of those seeking to enter the United States seeking employment, or were brought into the nation as young children and have never known another homeland. However, another side to the softening of immigration rules is the potential to allow criminals or terrorists to enter into or stay in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration eased regulations barring individuals who had provided “limited material support” to terrorists from entering America. Questions have arisen whether the White House can unilaterally change enforcement policies written into law, a debate that has also affected the Affordable Care Act and other provisions.

The Administration contends that affected individuals have innocently and only marginally engaged in activities that benefited terrorists.  Opponents of the move argue that US officials rely only on the word of those seeking to enter that they were not actually sympathetic with those seeking to harm America or other Western targets.

The next issue involves the treatment of non-terrorist criminals by the Obama Administration. There are reports and studies indicating that criminals are being inappropriately released after their apprehension.

KRGV television in Texas reports that the border patrol union has protested against the Administration’s “Catch and Release” policy affecting many illegals captured by agents.
Men can http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MOTS-08.26.17-Massengill.pdf free levitra sample improve relationship with their wife by providing her with emotional security and intimacy. National Institute of Child Health canada generic viagra and Human Development, Marie Bristol-Power names among the possible causes of disease, pesticides and environmental contaminants. Storage Situate the tablet in safe and secure area away from small order cialis overnight brood, harmful sunlight and moisture place. Actually, this social network isn’t still open to public and it requires an invitation in the form of email from a person having the Google Plus account. sildenafil 100mg tablets
According to the reported release from the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307,

“Rank and file Border Patrol agents are frustrated with the catch and release process as a whole…illegals will continue to cross and strain the system in order to exploit the weaknesses in the system.  Our nation’s borders are not secure despite what some will try and have you believe…”

The Center for Immigration Studies  review of official records found that “hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens…were released instead of removed under the Administration’s sweeping “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines. In 2013,the US Immigration Custom Enforcement  agency (ICE)  reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens…Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals.  In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering.”

According to official records cited by the review, “ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation…in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs…every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity…ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.”

The White House and the Senate leadership continue to frame immigration reform in the context of those seeking to enter or remain in the US for wholesome reasons.  However, the more salient issue is the lax enforcement of laws affecting terrorists and criminals who are within American borders.

Categories
Announcements

The Latest

We are pleased to announce that Boulder, Colorado and Macon, Georgia have joined the list of cities broadcasting the Vernuccio/Allison Report!

The Vernuccio/Allison Report, available nationally on the amfm247 network, can be heard in Boulder on 100.7 fm and in Macon on 98.3 fm and 810am, every Thursday at 10am.

Those cities join Las Vegas, Nevada (1520am & 107.1 fm,) Lancaster, Pennsylvania (1640 am & 102.1fm), and Tampa, Florida (1630 am, 102.1fm) which also broadcast Thursday at 10am.
female viagra samples In almost all cases it comes to internet and shopping. They think they have to the buy levitra go it alone and admitting they don’t have the answer will permanently mar their reputation. Are there any Serious Side Effects? While the product helps buying viagra uk in providing satisfaction, individuals are required to consume the product only once in a day. Naturally, we can maintain alkalinity of the cialis prescription prices pancreatic gland is a serious business.
The Vernuccio/Allison Report is broadcast in New York on WVOX 1460 am and WVIP-HD-4 every Saturday at 10am.

The show is also available on Spreaker and iTunes.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Ryan Budget

When Ronald Reagan succeeded jimmy Carter, the phrase “paradigm shift” became ubiquitous due to the radical alteration in the federal government’s focus.

Another such paradigm shift has been proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, to the great consternation of both Democrats and some Republicans.  Progressives dislikes the concept because it would literally be a complete change of course in almost everything the President has done during his tenure in office. Republicans fear that his blunt assessments and rigorous policies would frighten voters.

Our review of the Ryan proposal, entitled the “Path to Prosperity,”  notes that it begins where both Democrats and Republicans have lately feared to tread: the issue of national defense.  President Obama and Senate Democrats have taken the US rapidly down the road towards significant arms reduction even while China, Russia, North Korea and Iran substantially expand their military.  While Republicans have objected to the White House’s actions, they have not acted as vigorously as expected, in substantial part due to the influence of “budget hawks” who point to the overwhelming national deficit and the isolationist influence of the increasingly popular Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

In a complete reversal of that trend, the Ryan budget begins with an emphasis on “Protecting the nation…The first job of the federal government is to protect the nation from threats at home and abroad…” The proposal would halt any cuts that would impede the effectiveness of U.S. armed forces.

In direct contrast to the massive increase in entitlement spending during the Obama Administration, Ryan proposes an emphasis on job creation and a reversal of the dramatic upswing in regulations that affect both individuals and businesses.
In small doses it provides a bacteriostatic action (breaking the protein synthesis), and online viagra india in high doses, this complete tends to lead hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Go for reputed and well known platform only and avail genuine branded medications to the ED patients cialis lowest price at the lowest prices. It relieves you from sexual cheap cialis disorders and helps to gain get harder erections without any fear of side effects. It relieves you from insomnia, secretworldchronicle.com generic cialis no rx depression and stress.
But neither the defense provisions nor the change in course from government growth vs. business growth may be considered the most controversial for both Democrat and Republican observers.

The proposal would, in essence, transform Medicare from an entitlement to a voucher-type system in 2024, allowing those retiring at that point an option to retain the current system or transfer to competing plans.  Even more controversial, it would gradually increase the retirement age.

It would cut $23 billion in agriculture subsidies, and transform the SNAP program (food stamps) into a block grant program.

While Ryan’s proposal can’t be faulted for its fiscal logic or its emphasis on reversing the extremely dangerous Obama defense policies, the potential “fear factor” it could generate among many voters renders it a gutsy but politically risky move.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court Ruling Protects 1st Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in the matter of McCutheon et al v. Federal Elections Commission complies with the view that attempts to interfere in the electoral process in ways not specified by the Constitution must be carefully screened to insure that they do not violate the First Amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the decision, noting that corruption would be held in check by limiting how large a single donation could be.  The ruling indicates that the ceilings on the total amounts contributed each election cycle would not undermine that goal.

In its 5-4 decision yesterday, the Court held that “The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute.  Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption…It may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That part of the decision—stressing that campaign regulations cannot be used to enhance the influence of some at the expense of others– is of extraordinary importance. Although the McCutheon case involves the question of aggregate limits on individual political contributions, that part of the decision may be seen as a cautionary note that the growing environment at the federal, state and local levels of campaign regulation may be violative of free speech rights.

Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics.  A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns.  Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.”

Campaign finance regulations have been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses.  The ability to do this is especially prevalent in jurisdictions where taxpayer funds are provided to help finance campaigns.
Kamagra for Quick Results in Bed The effectiveness of the generic cialis cipla . The direct levitra generic vs causal connection between the drugs is that former is cost effective than the latter. If you too have problem keeping or achieving firm erection for a longer period and especially during buying viagra the sexual intercourse activity. None of them provide genuine one-on-one mentors where a student can avail the benefits viagra no prescription fast of the distance education, thoroughly online.
Recent decisions of the Supreme Court—including both the McCutcheon case and Citizens United—have taken positions protective of the First Amendment.

The ban on any contributions from foreign sources, not part of the McCutheon case, continues.  Scandals involving contributions from foreign sources have affected both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

According to a Washington Times article the web site Obama.com, owned by a China-based American business man, which attracted an overwhelming majority of foreigners to it, routed visitors to a donation site. Other published reports have revealed that an Obama web site accepted donations from abroad, while a similar Romney site rejected similar foreign donations.

Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign was also linked to a serious foreign contribution scandal. Approximately $100,000 from China’s military was funneled to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996 by the daughter of a top general in the People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing.  The funds were not returned until after an investigation revealed the illegal activity.

Both the limits themselves, and the complicated system of reporting under federal, state and local campaign finance regulations, can be seen as favoring “party-boss” backed candidates who have both access to the specialized skills necessary to timely provide mandated filings as well as access to the type of fund-raising abilities that comply with the regulations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Role in Israeli-Palestinan Negotiations Not Succeeding

It increasingly appears that the White House’s role in negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is yielding as little in the way of beneficial results as its prior support for the Arab Spring, or its “red line” for Syria. Combined with the problems the Administration has encountered following its premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a picture of a region that continues to be mired in antagonism emerges, and the threat of an Iranian nuclear breakout still looms.

In all probability, there will be some isolated and largely irrelevant concessions by both sides. The U.S. is dangling the release of Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard in return for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s release of a fourth group of Palestinian prisoners. The move is an odd gambit, since it does not involve a concession from the Palestinians, only from the U.S., which increasingly is one of Israel’s few allies.

Releasing Pollard, who passed U.S. classified data to Israel in the 1980’s, is a political move on the part of the White House, a response to domestic criticism that it has been unsupportive of Israel.  It is an attempt to deflect that criticism by resurrecting an old dispute between two nations who have a general commonality of interests.
While a third part of them experience erection issues. viagra canada Raisin dry sildenafil 100mg tablets fruit is a perfect one for anemia, fever, sexual, constipation, teeth and bone problems. The sildamax helps in getting intimate by slight activity in the intimate parts of women.In male the enhance flow of blood increases the hardness and erection of his gentile organ for completion of the sexual intercourse.In 1998 Pfizer launched the medicine sildamax which is known today also for the cure of the erectile dysfunction problem. viagra uk Erectile dysfunction is a common sexual problem, particularly for men. levitra vardenafil 20mg
It is also expected that an understanding will be reached to continue negotiations in some form going forward. Negotiations are, of course, preferable to armed conflict. However, once again, no real progress is taking place.

The Israeli-Palestinian debate cannot move forward until a central issue is resolved: the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Categories
NY Analysis

US Slashes Military as Russia Expands

 As the United States continues to slash military funding and President Obama advocates unilateral nuclear reductions, Russia is rapidly and substantially increasing both its strategic and conventional armed forces.

Over the past five years, the United States has cancelled or indefinitely postponed numerous key weapons systems, including those involving advanced missile defense, strategic bombers, strategic submarine programs, and others. The numbers of those existing systems have shrunk to levels not seen since before the Second World War, including a naval force reduced to World War One size. It’s not just the numbers that are worrisome-although at less than half their 1990 numbers that is significant enough-it’s the condition the remaining equipment is in that troubles observers. The existing U.S. arsenal is increasingly old to the point of being dangerous to use.

According to a Foundry review, “… the U.S. is the only state with nuclear weapons without a substantive nuclear weapons modernization program. Since New START entered into force, the Russians have announced the most massive nuclear weapons build-up since the end of the Cold War. Over time, if the U.S. does not change its policy or Russia adopts a fundamentally different strategic posture, Washington policymakers will be left with a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage vis-à-vis Moscow and potentially other nuclear-armed states.”

U.S. planning centers on the belief that the Cold War is over, but Russia does not concur. Indeed, Moscow has taken precisely the opposite course. As noted by NTI,

“Once Russia completes recapitalization and modernization of its strategic triad, the structure and composition will largely mirror the strategic triad the Soviet Union created during the Cold War, and that Russia attempted to maintain following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”

While the terms of the New START treaty adopted in the first Obama term left the U.S. and Russia in rough numerical strategic nuclear parity, it overlooked a needed ban on Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle warheads (MIRVs). As a result, Russia “out-MIRVS“the U.S. by one per each accountable deployed delivery system. Further, Moscow is rapidly gaining the advantage due to the diverse treatment of each nation’s arsenal.

One should stop using Kamagra tablets 100mg, cialis tab if they are not used according to the prescribed dosage. Kamagra tablets should cialis properien try these guys be ingested 30 minutes before your sexual intercourse as it is absorbed within 2 hours. The good news is that it’s possible to cure impotence. cialis viagra australia appalachianmagazine.com which is an effective solution that helps men to attain or maintain an erection for a satisfying sexual intercourse. Insulin resistance is the classic example of this, when the pancreas is out of sync viagra delivery with the liver and the brain, causing insulin production to be too high or too low.
America’s strategic weaponry is aged and increasingly unreliable.  In contrast, Russia is diligently and rapidly modernizing its forces. As noted by the New Deterrent Working Group:

“As America refrains from modernizing its deterrent, Russia is demonstrably relying ever more heavily on its nuclear forces, which are being systematically built up…they are working hard on a range of nuclear improvements and also on consolidating their advantage in short range nuclear weapons in order to dominate their neighbors. The Kremlin is simultaneously engaging more and more direct nuclear threats against our allies, eroding confidence in the United States’ extended deterrent.  An Moscow is irrefutably doing hydronuclear and hydrodynamic experiments at Novaya Zemlya, underground nuclear testing of a sort the United States claims is impermissible under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that it has, as a signatory…forsworn.”

Russia has actually increased the danger of nuclear weapons use in recent years. The Congressional Research Services study released in January discusses Moscow’s growing emphasis on nonstrategic atomic arms:

“Russia has altered and adjusted the Soviet nuclear strategy to meet its new circumstances in a post-Cold War world. It explicitly rejected the Soviet Union’s no-first-use pledge in 1993, indicating that it viewed nuclear weapons as a central feature in its military and security strategies. However, Russia did not maintain the Soviet Union’s view of the need for nuclear weapons to conduct surprise attacks or preemptive attacks. Instead, it seems to view these weapons as more defensive in nature, as a deterrent to conventional or nuclear attack and as a means to retaliate and defend itself if an attack were to occur.

“Russia has revised its national security and military strategy several times in the past 20 years, with successive versions appearing to place a greater reliance on nuclear weapons. For example, the military doctrine issued in 1997 allowed for the use of nuclear weapons “in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation.” The doctrine published in 2000 expanded the circumstances when Russia might use nuclear weapons to include attacks using weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies “as well as in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.” In mid-2009, when discussing the revision of Russia’s defense strategy that was expected late in 2009 or early 2010, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Presidential Security Council, indicated that Russia would have the option to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” against an aggressor “using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war.”

Moscow is expected to increase military spending by $770 billion within the current decade, and that is just the public portion of the nation’s armed forces budget.  Nuclear weapons expenditures will be hiked by 50% in the next two years.

As President Obama seeks to close down the only American plant manufacturing tanks, Russia plans to add 2,300 new tanks.

Putin’s air force will fly 1,200 new helicopters and planes, and his navy will float fifty new surface ships, including a new missile sub.

Within a year, PRAVDA notes, 40 new intercontinental missiles will be deployed.  In 2013, Russia’s powerful new YARS mobile ICBMs were deployed. The Iskander tactical mobile nuclear missiles were positioned to threaten Europe.

More Missile defense radars wll be fielded and the Triumph missile defense will be implemented this year-an irony considering Moscow’s opposition to U.S. missile defense plans.

Russia’s emphasis on the need for tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional threats appears unnecessary.  According to the New York Times American forces in Europe have been sharply reduced, dropping from 400,000 to 67,000.  The arsenal of weapons at the disposal of the U.S. military in Europe is said to be 85% smaller than in 1989.

Moscow is deploying its modernized military in areas immediately threatening to the United States. It is establishing a presence  in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Putin has also ordered his forces to establish a significant presence in the Arctic.

President Obama’s belief that Russia is only a “regional power” is truly bizarre in light of these statistics, and his policy of unilateral arms reduction appears to be exceptionally imprudent.