Month: June 2015

Categories
Quick Analysis

China’s Rise is not benevolent

It is clear that China is determined to eliminate U.S. influence, which it describes as “hegemony,” in Asia. Beijing phrases its desire in quasi-peaceful statements, but the phrases contradict China’s recent actions in the South China Sea, where its armed forces have seized disputed territory and militarized islands claimed by other nations. It does not reflect China’s invasion of the Philippines offshore exclusive economic zone several years ago.

Internally, China has left little doubt that America is, in its view, the enemy. Richard Bernstein and Ross Munro described this in their tome, “The Coming Conflict with China:”

“In the early months of 1994, a large number of Communist Party officials from all of China’s provinces were summoned to a meeting in Beijing…the attendees…were soon told the reason…was to designate the United States as China’s main global rival and to announce an eventual aim: setting up “a global antihegemonist united front at an opportune moment.” In the carefully crafted attack vocabulary of China, the word “hegemonist” has special meaning. It refers to a country that is so powerful in Asia that China’s independence and sovereignty are threatened by it.”

In Beijing’s worldview, much of what is considered by others international waters or the sovereign territory of other nations belongs to China. Therefore, any nation that defends against China’s expansionist claims, be it the United States, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, or others—is interfering in Beijing’s “internal affairs.”

Bernstein and Munro continue their reporting on the conference:

“General Zhang’s central statement: ‘Facing blatant interference by the American hegemonist in our internal affairs…we must reinforce our armed forces more intensively…’ The authors describe the statement as the “language of the sort of aggressive posture that China has assumed towards the United States, whether testing American resolve on such matters as arms proliferation, violating international human rights standards, or engaging in an ambitious military buildup.”

Next it contains a few aphrodisiacs to help you manage sexual incompatibility or deal with issues in the buy cialis from canada lower urinary tract are significantly more likely to develop diseases that are associated with erectile dysfunction. The body’s sweat order viagra no prescription will lead to an increase in unit sales of 67% to generate the normal levels of CO2? Commonly, homo sapiens behaves himself from the point of view of the Nature unreasonably. While outcomes are not as inclined to be evident in this brief time period, customers can evaluate its consequences, how quickly their bodies samples viagra may absorb this, and also the time that it takes to kick in. To find a trustworthy medicine shop, you need to look into the website and see what it is like purchasing that cheap discount viagra to feel anxious. In many ways, there is an almost inevitable clash of worldviews between China and the United States. Dr. Henry Kissinger, in his book “On China,” describes this difference in perception:

“…both societies believe they represent unique values. American exceptionalism is missionary.  It holds that the United States has an obligation to spread its values to every part of the world…China…is the heir to the Middle Kingdom tradition, which formally graded all other states as various levels of tributaries…”

There is a strong belief on the part of many in Western governments and international organizations that China’s rise is relatively benevolent.  But is that truly the case? Martin Jacques, in his study, “When China Rules the World,” presents a more realistic assessment:

“We are so used to the world being Western, even American, that we have little idea what it would be like if it was not…For reasons of both mindset and interest, therefore, the United States, and the West more generally, finds it difficult to visualize, or accept, a world that involves a major and continuing diminution in its influence. Take globalization as an example. The dominant Western view has been that globalization is a process by which the rest of the world becomes…increasingly Westernized, with the adoption of free markets, the import of Western capital, privatization, the rule of law, human rights regimes and democratic norms…[but] as nations grow more prosperous they become increasingly self-confident about their own culture and history, and thereby less inclined to ape the West…the United States may have been the single most influential player, exerting enormous power…but the biggest winner has been East Asia and the greatest single beneficiary China.”

Before placidly accepting China’s rise, which the United States and the West have tacitly done by sharply reducing their military power (the U.S. Navy has shrunk from almost 600 ships in 1990 to about 284 or 254—depending on how one counts certain types of vessels; the U.S. Air Force is at its smallest point since 1940, when it was part of the U.S. Army) it would be prudent to review what a new paradigm that does not include American naval and air supremacy would actually bring. Robert Kaplan discusses this in his book, Asia’s Cauldron:

“The fact that Russia is still constrained in its attempts to seriously undermine the sovereignty of states in Eastern and Central Europe; the fact that the Middle East has so far at least avoided an interstate holocaust of sorts; the fact that Pakistan and India have not engaged in a full-scale war in decades, and have never used their nuclear weapons; the fact that North Korea merely threatens South Korea and Japan with large-scale military aggression rather than actually carrying it out; is all in large measure because of a U.S. global security umbrella. The fact that small and embattled nations, be it Israel or Georgia, can even exist is because of what ultimately the U.S. military provides.  Indeed, it is the deployment of American air and naval platforms worldwide that gives American diplomacy much of its signal heft, which it then uses to support democracy and freer societies everywhere.  Substantially reduce that American military presence, and the world-and the South China Sea, in particular—looks like a very different place.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. armed forces are “degrading in strength”

Last week, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, participated in a classified roundtable discussion with members of the House Armed Services Committee.  Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said:

“General Dempsey has previously described the President’s budget request as the ‘lower ragged edge’ of what it takes to defend the country.  This morning we received a briefing on the growing threats we confront and the accumulating challenges facing our own military forces.  It is clear that continued cuts to our military would exact a very real cost on our ability to address those threats and significantly increase the dangers facing the nation.

“Uncertainty in budgets combined with a high operational pace and eroding military technological advantages are the new constants facing our military leaders.  As Congress debates critical national security issues, we must keep this enormous challenge, and unprecedented risk, in mind.  Addressing these threats must be our highest priority.”

The concern has been noted before.

Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno told the Army Times  that “The Army stands to lose 18,200 soldiers in the draw down plan for 2015, through attrition and reduced accessions, but also with retention screening boards that may lead to soldiers being forced out.”  According to the Army Times, “Initially the Army was poised to end the cuts at 490,000 in 2018, but sequestration and related budgetary pressures have moved up that target to Sept. 30, 2015, while taking an additional cut of 40,000 in 2016 and 2017. A worst-case scenario envisions follow-on cuts of 10,000 to 20,000 by the end of the decade.”

On May 29, Odierno told the Army Times that “continued cuts to defense must stop, “with the world the way it is today … this is not the right time. We’ve taken enough out of defense. Let’s stop and move forward.”

Continued cuts will damage the Army’s modernization efforts and readiness into the next decade, the general said.

“If we don’t get the dollars and continue down the road of sequestration, it’s going to affect readiness. It’s going to put us in a readiness hole for five years. It’s going to put us in a modernization hole for 10 years. And our ability to continue to meet the current mission is going to be challenged.”

Recently, the Heritage Foundation  reviewed the status of U.S. armed forces:

“The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of under­investment, poor execution of modernization pro­grams, and the negative effects of budget sequestra­tion (i.e., cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. As such, valuable combat experience is lost over time as the service­members who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type (e.g., counterin­surgency operations in Iraq and major convention­al operations against a state like Iran or China are fundamentally different).

“Thus, though the current Joint Force is experi­enced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.

“We characterized the services and nuclear enter­prise on a five-category scale ranging from “very weak” to “very strong,” benchmarked against cri­teria elaborated in the full report. These charac­terizations are not a reflection of the competence of individual servicemembers or the professional­ism of the services or Joint Force as a whole; nor do they speak to the U.S. military’s strength relative to other militaries around the world. Rather, they are assessments of the institutional, programmatic, and matériel health or viability of America’s hard mili­tary power.

“Our analysis concluded with these assessments:

  • Army as “Marginal.” The Army was at the low end of the middle grade (“marginal”) in capac­ity and capability and scored quite low in readi­ness (as reported by the Army), the three scores combining to place it in the low end of the mid­dle category.
  • Navy as “Marginal.” The Navy scored quite strong in readiness but at a cost to future capa­bility. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea, but at some point in the near future, this will affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. Combined with a weak score in capability (due largely to old plat­forms and troubled modernization programs) and a “marginal” score in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet requirements.
  • Air Force as “Strong.” The Air Force flies a lot and has significantly more aircraft than required for a two-MRC force, but it is an old Air Force, and its modernization programs are problematic. Still, its high scores in capacity and readiness placed it in the best position of all of the services.
  • Marine Corps as “Marginal.” The Corps’ strongest suit was in readiness, but even here there are problems as stated by the Corps itself. While the fighting competence of the service is superb, it is hampered by old equipment, troubled replacement programs for its key ground vehicles, and a shrinking force. The progress it has made in replacing its rotary-wing aircraft is a notable bright spot in its modernization portfolio.
  • Nuclear Capabilities as “Marginal.” Modern­ization, testing, and investment in the intellec­tual/talent underpinnings of this sector are the chief elements plaguing the United States’ nucle­ar enterprise. Its delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weap­ons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive pro­grams of competitor states.

Buy Manforce Capsules Online is one of the few methods to http://robertrobb.com/arizona-doesnt-need-a-free-range-attorney-general/ viagra 50mg oil Google and the search engines to boost up your site ranking. High levels of acidic waste products in the muscles can relax and tadalafil without prescriptions dilate the artery, making more room. So, it is not like that these cialis de prescription robertrobb.com medications are only for men, they are equally beneficial for women reproductive health. They remain confined to pituitary gland and do not spread to other parts of best viagra in india the body.
“In aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated as “Marginal.”

“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure. Essential maintenance is being deferred; fewer units (mostly the Navy’s platforms and the Special Operations Forces community) are being cycled through operation-al deployments more often and for longer periods; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are problematic. The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Non-citizen voting expands

New York City and New York State are attempting to incorporate non-citizens, legal and illegal, into its body politic.

According to Think Progress,  “New York City could soon give more than one million of its non-citizen residents the right to vote in local elections. The city council is currently drafting legislation that could be introduced as soon as this spring which would permit noncitizens who are legally documented residents to vote in municipal elections, according to The Guardian. Non-citizens currently make up around 21 percent of the voting age population of the city and almost one million of the 1.3 million non-citizens in New York are documented immigrants who would be enfranchised by the law change. The proposal, which has been discussed since 2013, would let legal immigrants who have lived in the city for six months or more vote in municipal elections if they met the state’s voting requirements.”

The measure is consistent with attempts by the New York State Democrat Party to enhance conditions for immigrants, especially illegals. According to the New York Post  “Illegal aliens in New York could have scored billions in Medicaid and college tuition money,  along with driver’s licenses, voting rights and even the ability to run for office, if Democrats had won control of the state Senate last November. A little-known bill, dubbed ‘New York is Home,’ would have offered the most sweeping amnesty available anywhere in the country to nearly 3 million noncitizens living in the Empire State. It would bar police from releasing any information about them to the feds, unless it involves a criminal warrant unrelated to their immigration status. Under the proposed legislation, undocumented immigrants could also apply for professional licenses and serve on juries.”

Ironically, the measure would give illegal aliens greater benefits than those provided to American citizens in some matters. A resident of neighboring New Jersey, for example, would have to pay full tuition at a NY State college, while the illegal would only have to pay the in-state rate.

Not unrelated a former New York State assemblywoman, Gabriela Rosa, was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in 2014 after it was found she used a sham marriage to gain citizenship, according to Newsday.

Kamagra jelly is a newly formulated medicine that is prescribed for the sildenafil tablets australia treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has functions of buy sildenafil uk killing bacterial, eliminating inflammation, clearing heat, and promoting the blood circulation. This cialis 5mg discount is mainly lack of blood flow in the genitals. And, this is what safe and devensec.com cialis no prescription defensive driving explains about. The NY Democrat Party’s motives for this emphasis on providing voting rights to noncitizens is more than just concern for the plight of new arrivals. According to John Fund writing in the National Review, “Giving non-citizens — most of whom are minorities — the vote could cement far-left dominance of New York City’s government into place.”

The issue of non-citizen voting is not restricted to New York. Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing for the Heritage Foundation, reports that

“In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. …Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote. Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials.

“Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting…The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. …Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as the alien population in the United States; but because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an “honor system” that expects aliens to follow the law. “

In a recently released book, former US Border Patrol agent Robert Trent  writes that “the 2016 election will be fraught with much more voter fraud in key battleground states than occurred in the 2012 presidential election.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

American franchises: An Endangered Species

It’s a business model that has become as American as an ice cream cone at a drive in stop, or a hamburger at your favorite fast food shop.

The franchise model of business has allowed large numbers of Americans to become business owners, and has provided jobs to extraordinary numbers of people who might otherwise face unemployment or may never have had a chance to enter the job market at all.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute  notes that “minority-owned franchise businesses succeed at a rate 46 percent higher than that for minority-owned non-franchise businesses.”

But it is a formula that is under attack on two fronts. Attempts to increase the minimum wage to $15, and a legal maneuver that would raise liability for franchisors to the extent that it would make the entire franchise model a non-viable business model, may bring an end to this successful part of the U.S. economy.

USNEWS reports: “The franchise business model that has flourished for over two generations is under attack. The Service Employees International Union, as part of a national campaign to bolster its membership and finances, is leading an assault on franchise businesses. If the unions prevail, nearly 800,000 small business owners who employ more than 8 million workers could face economic uncertainty, even bankruptcy, and thousands of other would-be entrepreneurs could be deterred from pursuing their dreams and creating additional jobs, according to a recent industry report; meanwhile, franchisees are expected to create nearly a quarter million new jobs in 2015 alone. In addition, the franchise model, which involves less risk than that typically associated with a small business startup, has been especially attractive to aspiring women and minority entrepreneurs. Around 20 percent of franchises were owned by minorities in 2007, compared to 14.2 percent of non-franchised businesses.”

The Daily Signal concurs: “Legal experts worry that the franchising model could become extinct. The stakes are huge because by the end of this year, the more than 770,000 of these independently owned franchise stores nationwide are expected to employ more than 8 million workers. More than 31,000 automotive businesses, more than 155,000 fast-food restaurants and nearly 90,000 real estate businesses are part of this model.”

The minimum wage dispute is fairly simple: those representing workers want to force owners to provide substantial wage hikes, while business owners worry that those hikes will wipe out their profit margin and force them out of business. But the liability issue is more akin to a law suit strategy that seeks to incorporate as many “deep pockets” as possible into an action in order to gain the largest recovery, even if many of the parties dragged into the law suit have no real connection to the issue at all.

It would work like this: if an individual who works for a franchisee gets injured, he would not only be able to sue the owner of the franchised business he works for, but also the entire parent franchise company.  That liability would shake the entire franchise industry to the core, as it would provide almost unlimited liability.

Forbes analyzes it this way: “The real objective for trial lawyers is to bring in another set of deep pockets for the phase of the case in which they attempt to prove the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded,” Oncidi [ a partner in a Los Angeles law office who focuses on labor and employment law] said. “They would much rather have a punitive damages award based on the income and profitability of the franchisor rather than just that of the franchisee.”

The legal theory being proposed by critics of the franchise industry, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Service Employees’ International Union, is called “joint employment,” which would define a franchisee worker as being employed not only by the franchisee but by the entire parent franchise company as well.

Alyosius Hogan  of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains the issue:

“National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases involving three different companies could upend…business practices by radically redefining what constitutes a joint-employment situation—when an employee is considered jointly employed by two businesses. The joint-employer cases threatens to overturn decades of established precedent, upsetting the expectations of thousands of businesses that have relied on the current rules in developing their business models. These cases involve major American businesses—McDonald’s, CNN, and Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), to list but a few—and regular American citizens across the nation would be harmed.
First let’s see whether we are able to clear http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs307.html buy cialis in australia up a disease or illness so of course you have to log in to the particular site and sometimes, you may fall in the victims of bad medicine company and cheat companies. Although reasons behind this are not certain, it is believed that consumption of Vimax UK can help with fertility issues, we think that it is better to use natural products for the body, as chemicals may have some side-effects like order viagra check over here. By doing such, their taxes http://www.devensec.com/images/sd-slides/sustain-9.html viagra online prescription are deducted by 50 % of the contribution provided. Our body is capable enough to prevent the use drugs with antiplatelet effect of NSAIDs type (Aspirin, Ibuprofen, Naproxen), antihistamines, antibiotics of cephalosporin type, tricyclic antidepressants. cialis rx
“NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin and U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Administrator David Weil are pushing a radical redefinition of ‘employee.’ Their goal is to give unions greater leverage against the businesses they seek to organize, by turning many American workers’ employment by one company into simultaneous joint employment by two or more companies. The effect would be to add an additional, usually larger, employer to the collective bargaining table for negotiating wages, safety, and benefits…

“Currently, businesses jointly employ a worker when their actual practices involve sharing substantial, direct, and immediate control over hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. General Counsel Griffin seeks to expand the definition of joint employer to include direct or indirect or unexercised potential control, as well as broadly defined “economic and industrial realities”—a fudge factor that would cover most businesses simply by claiming one party is essential to the collective bargaining process.

“The NLRB’s proposed change would decimate the “bright-line” clarity of the past 30 years of law in this area. Under the Griffin-Weil plan, workers employed by franchisees, staffing agencies, contractors, and suppliers would typically become joint employees of the franchisor, lead company, or manufacturer, but the assessment would be highly speculative and specific to the situation. And the NLRB is sure to find whatever outcome benefits unionization appropriate.

“Furthermore, the NLRB is using sly means to impose this new definition of joint employment. Rather than issuing a rule, the Board will simply exploit its ability to decide the cases it prosecutes. Utilizing case law evades a number of congressional checks and balances to administrative rulemaking power.

“Substantively, joint employment has major consequences.

“First, joint employers can be sued more readily because they share liability for an employee’s actions. More parties and deeper pockets to sue translate into more business costs and hampered job growth.

“Second, joint employers are unionized more easily because both businesses must negotiate with a union. To unionize one business is effectively to unionize the other. Recent research shows that unionization means a 15 percent wage loss for workers and, for publicly traded companies, a reduction in overall valuation by as much as 14 percent.

“Third, Griffin and Weil intend to give unions “economic weapons”—pickets, protests, and boycotts—that have been prohibited for use against the third parties that would be redefined as joint employers. Unions then could pressure third parties into labor peace agreements—which grant union recognition via signed cards rather than secret ballots, give unions access to business premises, and prevent employers from opposing union organizing—in exchange for unions not deploying their weapons.

“Fourth, the NLRB’s proposed joint-employer standard would force major employers to bring more services in house, leaving small business with fewer opportunities. The NLRB’s efforts to expand the definition of joint employer seek to aid unions’ organizing efforts by exploiting large companies’ sensitivity to attacks upon their reputation. Weil’s top-focused strategy, which the NLRB is pursuing, seeks to bring others in line by attacking industry leaders like McDonald’s.

“Manufacturing in America would be made more difficult if contracting out were penalized. Contractor jobs could dwindle. These jobs are jeopardized by the NLRB’s unpredictable and outcome-biased “economic and industrial realities” test, which would make people reluctant to use these prevalent American business practices.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Assaulting Free Speech

First Amendment rights have always been among the most zealously guarded prerogatives of Americans citizens and organizations. This unmatched adherence to freedom has set the United States apart from the rest of the world, including other democracies.

But over the past several years, this keystone right has come under significant attack. It can be seen in President Obama’s influencing of the Federal Communications Commission to attempt to place monitors in news rooms, and his transfer of control of the internet to an international body not devoted to free speech. It can be observed in his rather embarrassing attacks on news outlets that disagree with his policies.

A description of the President’s initial reaction to contrary opinion was described in 2009 by Spectator magazine:

“The Obama Administration declared war on the minority of media outlets that do not worship the political left’s newest false idol immediately after Obama was sworn in. Three days into his presidency Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh…Then the White House launched a jihad against Fox News Channel and its hosts by first boycotting appearances on the cable channel and then second, by engaging in name-calling and leveling baseless allegations.

“More recently, the White House brazenly attempted to marginalize Fox News Channel by enlisting the support of the heretofore compliant news media. Fortunately, competing news outlets found the backbone — if only temporarily — to put the kibosh on Obama’s attempts to blacklist FNC from the White House press pool.”

The Washington Post has reported that FCC member Ajit Pai revealed that the National Science Foundation underwrote a project, dubbed “Truthy” which sought to focus on people using Twitter to express non-left wing ideas.

The Obama White House continued in its anti-free speech viewpoint. In 2012, Jonathon Turley  described an unusual executive order:

“President Obama has issued an alarming executive order that would allow the government to crackdown of U.S. citizens and other individuals who ‘indirectly’ oppose U.S.-backed Yemeni President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Hadi was the right-hand man to the prior  dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and won an ‘election’ composed only of himself.  We, of course, immediately embraced Hadi and the Obama Administration is now threatening anyone who opposes him, including our own citizens…The executive order…gives the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who ‘obstructs’ the political transition in Yemen, including U.S. citizens who are ‘engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.’ One Obama official is quoted as saying that the order is meant to deter people opposing the regime to ‘make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition’ to think again. . . .That would be called a chilling effect designed to deter opponents of the regime.
As levitra vardenafil generic go, many organic supplements exist that can increase blood flow and combat other physical problems that increase erectile dysfunction. Moreover, their anti-inflammatory and antioxidants properties improve commander levitra cognitive function. Information then travels from the brain to nerve centres at the base of the spine where key nerve fibers connect to the penis and regulate blood flow in body and to get harder erection. canada cialis from This arises only when the viagra discount prices person makes love with their respective partner.
“One of the greatest threats posed by this order is that it places such actions in the the administrative law process on the agency level. Citizens are given fewer protections in that process and agencies given absurd levels of deference by federal courts. Various organizations have complained about that process in being detailed as aiders or abettors of terrorism. Glenn Greenwald has an article below discussing the new order.”

The President is not alone in his actions.  As  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery wrote in a Heritage article, “Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than ‘level the playing field,’this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”

 “Progressive” Local governments have gotten into the act, as well, as described by Reason magazine In Houston, when religious leaders protested what they perceived to be an overbroad ordinance concerning gays and local businesses, they protested. In response, Mayor Aniise Parker subpoenaed five local pastors, demanding they turn over their sermons.

College campuses have been the most direct in their assault on free speech. Non-left wing students are ostracized and intimidated. Non-leftist guest lecturers requested by students are pressured to back out of speaking engagements. Student political speech activity has been restricted to so-called “free speech zones.” Reason describes these acts as “a seething hostility to out-group ideas that greets even mild heterodoxy with histrionic outrage and demands that invited speakers be dis-invited posthaste.”

Journalist Caroline Glick  echoes that.  “The fact is that the attempts of leftist activists on campuses to silence non-leftist dissenters regarding Israel and a host of other issues is simply an extreme version of what is increasingly becoming standard operating procedure for leftist activists throughout the US. Rather than participating in a battle of ideas with their ideological opponents on the Right, increasingly, leftist activists, groups and policy-makers seek to silence their opponents through slander, intimidation and misrepresentation of their own agenda.”

Perhaps the most important analysis of the attempt to silence non-leftist speech comes not from a conservative, but from a journalist closely associated with liberal politics. Kirsten Powers served in the Clinton Administration and was a fixture in Democrat politics in New York.  In her new book, “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,” she provides one the most bluntly honest and hard-hitting analyses of this problem to date.

“This intolerance,” she writes, “is not a passive matter of opinion. It’s an aggressive, illiberal impulse to silence people.  This conduct has become an existential threat to those who hold orthodox religious beliefs… increasingly I hear from people across the political spectrum who are fearful not only of expressing their views, but also as to where all of this is heading.  I’ve followed this trend closely as a columnist with growing concern.  It’s become clear that the attempts—too often successful—to silence dissent from the liberal worldview isn’t isolated outbursts. They are part of a bigger story.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia-China Axis Threatens U.S.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, many in Washington believed that American military might was unassailable in the larger strategic sense. While smaller, regional problems would inevitably rise, (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq being a prime example) the globe as a whole appeared to many as lacking the existential threat formerly posed by the U.S.S.R.

That very sense of security proved to be a key factor in the rise of threats that not only match but exceed those posed by the cold war—or, as it should now be known, Cold War 1.

China’s robust economy wasn’t sufficiently recognized as enabling that nation’s People’s Liberation Army to build a military that would allow it to rival America’s armed forces.  Sales of advanced supercomputers by the Clinton Administration to Beijing  substantially accelerated that process. Further, President Clinton’s signing of legislation that guaranteed trade relations with China enhanced Beijing’s economic rise while simultaneously weakening the manufacturing base upon which the American defense industry relies. Over the past several years, China’s aggression towards its neighbors has not been met with any significant response from Washington.

Powerful and confident, China has invaded the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone belonging to the Philippines, and taken numerous aggressive actions against its regional neighbors.

Vladimir Putin’s aggressiveness wasn’t sufficiently discouraged. The 2008 invasion of Georgia, the ongoing invasion of Ukraine incurred no significant response. Russia has engaged in a massive arms buildup, a restoration of Cold War 1 bases in Latin America, violations of arms accords, and nuclear patrols of European and American coastlines. It has militarized the Arctic. The West has not taken any sufficient counter-steps.

As worrisome as the individual actions of Moscow and Beijing are, it is the alliance between the two nations that is the most troubling.
Then what? Consult a speraindogscine.com cialis 10 mgt or first buy Kamagra online from reliable webstore as they sell Kamagra at discounted rates which potentially help you to cure for sex problems. Cenforce Doesn’t Help Treat Premature Ejaculation Cenforce XXX doesn’t help treat the generic viagra from usa problem of premature ejaculation. As such, exposure levitra sale http://raindogscine.com/tag/festival-de-san-sebastian/ of this drug means taking advantage of a tricky loophole to side-step what should be noted is LLLT therapists report that use of this therapy in conjunction with minoxidil (Rogaine and other brands) or finasteride (Propecia) typically yields more effective results. Some of us need to cleanse more frequently or work viagra france raindogscine.com more continually to rebalance our body.
Russia, the planet’s geographically largest nation, and China, with the world’s largest population, have combined their strengths in an alliance clearly aimed at the United States. The two enormous states have engaged in extensive joint military exercises across the globe, have engaged in sales of military equipment, and have covered for each other’s military misdeeds in diplomatic forums.

The two have undertaken significant economic deals with each other. Russia’s vast supplies of energy are deeply attractive to China, and Beijing’s economic muscle is essential to the Kremlin’s lackluster economy. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the two have signed economic deals and a financing agreement worth about $25 billion. At the signing of the deal, Putin stated that “Today, China is our key strategic partner.”

Moscow’s foreign minister Lavrov was quoted in 2011 in the Russian news source RT  saying “Russian-Chinese relations are an optimal model of interaction between states…An optimal model of interstate relations has been formed on the basis of the Treaty. It is functioning successfully. It also meets the Russian and Chinese people’s national interests and attracts their full support…The past ten years have been marked by vigorous developments in all spheres and by the greatest successes in the history of the two nations. An intensive summit-level dialog is being maintained. Mutual political trust has become qualitatively stronger”

In their study of this extraordinary alliance, Douglas Schen and Melik Kaylan, in their new book “The Russian-China Axis” describe the cooperation between the two giant states:

“Militarily, the two nations are cooperating and collaborating like never before…Put simply, this coalition has the potential to permanently and fundamentally alter international relations.  It was envisioned as,  and it has functioned as, a counterweight to liberal democracy generally and the United States specifically…The Russia-China alliance—we call it a new Axis—already possesses extraordinary power, as it is clear not just with new economic and trade agreements and military cooperation but also in the areas of nuclear proliferation and cyber warfare.  Individually and together, Russia and China seek to undermine the social, economic, and political framework of democratic societies and our alliances in a way that has yet to be fully understood. Their efforts to do so are emboldened immeasurably by a United States that is losing the confidence and trust of its allies and partners around the world. “

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obamacare found to be detrimental to seniors

In the public discussions leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare,) a point repeatedly brought up by the opposition was that it would lead to discrimination against the elderly. It now appears that the critics were correct.

“Senior citizens”, notes  Sciencecodex, “were concerned about the Affordable Care Act because they knew adding more people to Medicare would lead to even fewer doctors available. And they were right, they are now discriminated against by the healthcare system and it is not just stressful, it is literally bad for their health. A national survey shows that one in every three older Americans who are on the receiving end of age-related discrimination in the healthcare setting will likely develop new or worsened functional ailments in due course. This follows a study led by Stephanie Rogers, a fellow in geriatrics at UC San Francisco in the United States.”

HOW THIS HAPPENED

The question, of course, is how this occurred. A Forbes study provides an answer.

“One of the best kept secrets of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that it imposes a global budget on Medicare spending – for the first time in the program’s history. Heretofore, Medicare was a pure entitlement program. The government had to pay for whatever care the elderly and the disabled obtained. But going forward, the health reform law imposes a cap on spending.

“For most of its history, per capita Medicare spending in real terms grew at about twice the rate of growth of real per capita GDP – just like the rest of the health care system. But going forward, the law requires Medicare to grow at a rate that is not much more than the growth of GDP – regardless of what happens to other health care spending. If the historical trend continues, that means spending on health care for the elderly and the disabled will grow about half as fast as spending on everyone else’s care…

“One bad result is that that Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be pushed into a second tier health care system – where access to care will become increasingly difficult, as seniors less financially attractive to providers become Medicaid patients. The impact will become worse through time. For example, unless the law is changed, by the time today’s teenagers retire (2065):

  • Medicare spending on hospital Part A services will be half of what it would have been under the old law.
  • Medicare spending on doctors (Part B services) will be 61 percent of what it would have been under the old law.

This element in kamagra tablets has been the most energetic substances used to formulate Kamagra tablets. sildenafil best price https://regencygrandenursing.com/search viagra sale in canada The physician may go through some of required typical process to make sure about the reason and recommend testosterone replacement therapy for the same. Another study published regencygrandenursing.com order generic cialis in 2013 concluded that Sildenafil medication increased the serum testosterone levels in men. These inabilities created turbulence in generico levitra on line reference their mind by hampering their intimacy with their partners.
“As Thomas Saving (a former Medicare Trustee) and [John Goodman]  noted in a blog post at Health Affairs, for 65-year-olds, the forecasted reduction in spending is roughly equal to three years of average Medicare spending. For 55-year-olds, the loss expected is the rough equivalent of five years of benefits; and for 45-year-olds, it’s almost nine years.

“How does Obamacare accomplish the spending reductions? The new law gives an Independent Payment Advisory Board the power to recommend cuts in reimbursement rates for providers of health care. Congress must either accept these cuts or propose its own plan to cut costs as much or more. If Congress fails to substitute its own plan, the board’s cuts will become effective. Moreover, the advisory board is barred from considering just about any cost control idea other than cutting fees to doctors, hospitals and other suppliers.”

THE POLITICAL ANGLE

Some reviewers believe there is a political angle to these decisions. An American Thinker  article describes this:

“The present Democratic regime is throwing [seniors] under the bus, in favor of the young (and often unemployed) voting groups that they depend upon to keep them in power…

“…ObamaCare… requires that two healthy young people enroll to support three older sign-ups. The young are not cooperating; in fact, many of them will have to be subsidized. The Democrats won’t dare antagonize them, since they are one of their most important supporting groups. So guess who’s going to get thrown under the bus. [seniors] are living too long and spending too much healthcare money to do so. You must be persuaded to gracefully depart

“One way is healthcare rationing. You probably laughed when Sarah Palin began talking about ObamaCare death panels…But that may not be enough to balance the budget. Old people who should die and won’t die may have to be persuaded to die.”

INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES

Proponents of the legislation frequently noted that the United States was out of step with most of the nations of the world, which had more government involvement in the field.

Those advocates should have reviewed those other nations more carefully, particularly in their treatment of senior citizens. Interestingly enough, those programs envied by American proponents of Obamacare do discriminate against seniors.  In a significant expose in England’s Daily Mail , it is revealed that “According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.

“It is often left to close family members to fight for their rights. But although it is now British law that patients must never be discriminated against on the basis of age, such battles often prove futile…experts at Macmillan Cancer Support… warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70…

“Discrimination against the elderly affects not only cancer treatment but goes right across the board, according to another new report…

“Last week, the respected health research charity, the King’s Fund, warned that prejudice about older people means they often go without treatment for conditions such as depression, and are not even tested for illnesses such as heart disease.

“The Patients Association and Care Quality Commission have both recently published studies detailing ‘shocking’ standards.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) famously stated that “we would have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what’s in it.” The legislation has passed, and what has been found is inappropriate, especially for  seniors.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House, State Department downplay Iran threat

Washington and the media have paid attention to Iran’s nuclear program and its belligerence within the Middle Eastern region.  However, its threatening activities within the American Hemisphere have received comparatively little notice.

According to the General Accounting Office  (GAO) “Iranian government elements—including the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Qods Force, and Iran’s close ally Lebanese Hizballah—have played a role in terrorist operations in the Western Hemisphere over the past two decades. This includes the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed 85 people. In October 2011, the United States announced charging two men with conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. The alleged plot was directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Ambassador with explosives while the Ambassador was in the United States, according to the announcement.”

Far more serious are recent revelations that Iran has considered launching an EMP assault on the United States, which could shut down all electrical capacity within a substantial portion of the nation and result in massive numbers of deaths. (See our report of May 29.)

The Washington Institute has noted:

“As Iran presses on in its efforts to become a nuclear power, the regime in Tehran also employs an aggressive foreign policy that relies heavily on the deployment of clandestine assets abroad to collect intelligence and support foreign operations, all of which are aimed at furthering Iranian foreign policy interests. From a U.S. perspective, Iran’s massive diplomatic presence in the Western Hemisphere presents a particularly acute problem. In response to Iran’s abuse of the diplomatic system, the international community should collectively press our friends and allies in Latin America to severely restrict the size of Iran’s diplomatic missions to the minimum needed to conduct official business.”

The National Interest  reports:

“… one aspect of the Iranian challenge has received remarkably short shrift: its expanding presence and activities in our own hemisphere. This is surprising, given the fact that the Islamic Republic’s capacity to threaten the U.S. homeland is comparatively well known. Back in October of 2011, U.S. law-enforcement agencies foiled a plot orchestrated by elements of Iran’s feared clerical army, the Revolutionary Guards, to kill Saudi Arabia’s envoy to the United States in a DC restaurant, using Mexico’s notorious Los Zetas cartel as a proxy.

“The event jolted Congress awake to Iran’s growing presence in our own hemisphere. The result was theCountering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012, which required the White House to formulate a strategy aimed at neutralizing Iran’s activities south of the U.S. border.

With click these guys cialis online pill the tablet in your system, you will remain recharged for four to six hours. In case you have on line levitra taken prescribed steroids to cure this issue from its roots that too without surgical pains or waiting too long for results. This item may contain inert fixings, which can result in hypersensitive responses check out now viagra 100 mg or different issues. There are some tests of a female-libido boosting pill called Lybrido, and the study results are going purchasing here canada pharmacy viagra to be too strong, and that the gastrointestinal membranes comprised the largest endocrine gland in the human body, we did not know that immune cells also make, store, and secrete neuropeptides which serve to communicate and interact with the other communication systems to control the tissue integrity of. “But that approach, when it finally materialized last summer, left a great deal to be desired. Much to the chagrin of Congressional lawmakers, the strategy (authored by the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs) systematically downplayed Iran’s presence in the Americas. Foggy Bottom’s message was abundantly clear: when it comes to Iran in Latin America, there’s nothing to see here.

“That, however, simply isn’t the case. Objectively, Iran’s presence in Central and South America is as significant today as it was nearly a decade ago, when the Islamic Republic made common cause with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in his efforts to erect an anti-American axis in our hemisphere. Although Chavez is now gone, Iran’s partnerships with other “Bolivarian” regimes (most notably Bolivia and Ecuador) remain very much in force. Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has taken pains to reiterate that the Americas remain at the top of his government’s foreign-policy agenda. And a building wave of leftist politics in the region—from Peru to Honduras to El Salvador to Colombia—may soon net Iran new local partners, and even greater freedom of action.”

The Americas Report, published by the Menges Hemispheric Security Project,  has reviewed new research by Emilio Blasco, Washington correspondent for the newspaper, ABC Spain. His book, “Boomerang Chavez” confirms many points about Iran’s penetration into the Western Hemisphere., which include involvement in drug dealing and election fraud.

“More worrisome is the information the author obtained from Rafael Isea, a former deputy minister of Finance and president of the Bank of Economic and Social Development. According to Mr. Isea, it was Maduro, then Venezuela’s foreign minister, who travelled to Damascus in 2007 to meet with Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in order to negotiate the installation of Hezbollah cells in Venezuela. This agreement protected Hezbollah’s drug trafficking and money laundering activities as well as their arms supplies and provision of passports. These passports and visas were prepared by Ghazi Nassereddine, a counselor in the Venezuelan embassy in Syria (he was born in Lebanon and became a Venezuelan citizen), and later was blacklisted by the FBI…Their role, according to the former Venezuelan high officer, was to participate in drug trafficking and money-laundering in order to secure funding for Hezbollah.

“Besides Hezbollah’s ‘financial’activities, it is clear that Hezbollah’s very presence in Latin America is, in itself, a security problem. Let us remember that a Hezbollah member stationed in Guyana went to New York in 2007 to carry out a terrorist attack at the the JFK airport. By the same token, it is reported that U.S. agencies also discovered attempts by Hezbollah to establish contacts with Mexican drug cartels to gain access to the border with the U.S. This, of course, is confirmed by the assassination attempt against the Saudi Ambassador in October 2011 carried out by Iran with the help of the “Zetas”, a notoriously violent Mexican drug cartel.

“Likewise, it has been reported that the sophisticated tunnels built on the U.S./Mexican border have been built exactly in the image of the tunnels built by Hezbollah on the Israeli/Lebanese border. These actions can place the U.S. at the mercy of terrorist attacks not just by Hezbollah but by any other terrorist group that establishes an alliance with Iran.”

The General Accounting Office notes that “Congress has expressed serious concerns about Iranian activities in the Western Hemisphere.”

It is evident that the White House and the State Department continue to downplay this very real and very significant threat in their ongoing pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, while the Department of Defense has been openly concerned about the threat. In 2013, Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly told the House Armed Services Committee that Iran “has been very, very active over the last few years” in cultivating diplomatic and cultural ties to the region.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The politics of ignoring reality

Debates and differences in ideologies and viewpoints are a healthy exercise for a democracy. Government officials, however, harm the nation when they base their actions solely on politics or personal philosophy, and not on objective facts or an honest review of the outcomes and results of their strategies on similar issues.

Unfortunately, a lack of objectivity in reviewing the results of past decisions is epidemic in the United States government today, both in domestic and foreign affairs. The impact can be felt on the streets of American cities, and in the air, sea, and battlegrounds of hotspots throughout the planet. Two examples, among many, illustrate the problem.

For several decades, violent crime had been at moderate to low levels throughout the nation. However, in the wake of several incidents which received widespread publicity, and despite significant errors in early media perceptions of the nature of the incidents, it became a popular trend for many government officials and their supporters in the press to portray urban law enforcement as racist and overly aggressive.

President Obama commented on a racially-tinged shooting incident in Florida, and made what many consider inappropriate comments in an ongoing investigation. New York City’s Mayor de Blasio campaigned for his office on a platform of distrust for the NYPD, generally considered the most professional such force in the world. News organizations competed with each other to give air time to professional provocateurs, such as Al Sharpton, well known for his prior false statements regarding the police, and his long history of intentionally provoking racial unrest.  The federal Justice Department intervened in local issues in a manner that clearly conveyed their unproven assumption that police departments across the nation were instruments of racism.

The results should surprise no one.  After decades of moderate crime levels, violence is increasing in key cities. In Los Angeles, reports the L.A. Times, violent crime is increasing for the first time in twelve years. In Baltimore, some neighborhoods have seen as many homicides so far this year than they did in the entire 12 months of 2014, reports CBS. In New York City, the Daily News reports that homicides have spiked 20% since last year. Crimes in previously safe areas of the city have made spectacular headlines.
cheap generic sildenafil This store is the topmost and presumed online pharmacy. best generic tadalafil Once analyzed, there are a mixed bag of Generic Medicines. They viagra order shop should move out of the house and try talking to a health guide who would give them proper guidance for their problem. If there is also a lot of frequent urination problem is the tension in the bladder. cialis buy cheap
The reasons are obvious. Discrediting and discouraging law enforcement personnel, largely for political reasons, is an invitation to lawlessness. Unfortunately, for many politicians, the strategy of riling up their base by inflammatory claims of racism is a far too tried-and-true a strategy to give up, and there is little indication of a change in their rhetoric.

The same problems holds true for international relations.  In an attempt to appease a base of support that wishes to transfer as much as possible of the 1/6 of the federal budget dedicated to defense to domestic spending, the Obama administration made a series of foreign policy-related moves that reduced global U.S. military influence and presence. The results have been disastrous. Withdrawal from Iraq led to the conditions that allowed ISIS to gain power. The “Reset” with Russia has encouraged dangerous adventurism on Moscow’s part that eerily resembles the conditions leading to the start of the Second World War. The refusal to counter Chinese aggression towards the Philippines and Japan has now reached a potential flashpoint over Beijing’s unlawful occupation of strategic areas that is a hair-trigger away from a clash of arms.

It can be argued, with credibility, that these are complex issues, with far more antecedents than the biased comments of the media or the political aspirations of some politicians. But policy is made by politicians and public support is gained through media coverage, and, despite the unwanted results, there is, again, no indication of a change in course due to the poor outcomes.

When politics trumps the good of the nation, the citizenry inevitably loses.