Month: November 2015

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama rejects reality in dealing with terrorism

Pacifism and appeasement have repeatedly failed to deter aggression. However, that has not prevented the White House from employing those bankrupt concepts in response to the threats from ISIS and other radical groups.

The pacifist practice of ignoring the former Soviet Union’s actions, from its original alliance with Nazi Germany, its occupation of Eastern Europe, the oppression of its own citizenry and its nuclear threats was both immoral and useless in ending the Cold War. By the Late 1970’s, that policy error was dramatically evident. But the majority of voters in both the Democrat and Republican Parties did not subscribe to that concept. John F. Kennedy nobly stated during his brief Administration in the 1960’s that “America would pay any price, bear any burden in the defense of freedom.” Fortunately for the U.S., President Reagan had no qualms about standing up to tyranny. He rebuilt America’s armed forces and made it clear that Washington would actively oppose Moscow, and those actions were instrumental in bringing about about the end of the U.S.S.R.

Pacifists, led by the White House, engage in a senseless policy of appeasement with Islamic extremism. This time, however, they wholly dominate the leadership of the Democrat Party as well as academia.  Their supporters in the mass media have perfected a stranglehold on much of the news.  In fact, Mr. Obama has engaged in efforts, through the FCC, internet regulation, and the like, to limit any opposition to those views. The academic left attempts to do the same on campuses across the nation. Traditional left wing views, including anti-Semitism, (remember that Hitler was a “National Socialist”) the diversion of defense spending to welfare programs (a great way to buy votes) and selective amnesia about the lessons of history (especially in school textbooks) contrive to repeat the same mistakes (that allowed fascism to rise in the 1930’s and prolonged the Cold War) in dealing with Islamic extremists.

A series of historical falsehoods have been employed to explain away the fanatic hatred and actions of ISIS, al Qaeda and others, excuses which President Obama has continuously and wrongly given credence to.

The best player is one who has the best efficacy, while also considering other factors, such as time of onset, order cialis duration of action, window of opportunity and how side-effects affect them individually. Most of the components are price for levitra highly active against erectile dysfunction and effective in increasing blood circulation towards the sex organs. ED is a buy generic cialis larger curse than premature or quick ejaculation. This ensures a cialis no prescription complete satisfaction to the users. For the record: it was Islam that began the battle with the West, not vice-versa. The first Crusade was in 1096, but Islamic invasions in Europe took place long before that. Spain was invaded by Islamic forces in 711. In 732, Islamic forces advanced as far as Tours in France before being stopped. These conquests are not relegated to the distant past. In 1683, Islamic forces besieged Vienna.  But do not hesitate to cite ancient history: the historic imperialism of Middle Eastern nations (even pre-dating Islam itself) towards Western civilization dates at least as far back as the 5th Century B.C., when Persians sought to conquer Greece. Nor is the violence of the Jihads limited to the west.  Moslems with less militant beliefs have been greatly brutalized by the extremists. Buddhists, Israelis, adherents to African faiths and Hindus have been assaulted, as well.

In can be reasonably argued that the refusal to forcibly confront the Islamic extremist threat is even more irrational than the similar leftist (and isolationists in both parties) responses to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Those two entities posed direct threats of imminent but future war, which in the case of Germany did result in the Second World War.  Attacks by Jihadis have already begun. The assaults on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Boston Marathon, the Beirut barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, the Benghazi facility, Fort Hood, the London subway, the synagogue in Rome, and most recently Paris, as well as others far too numerous to mention in one article, are all evidence of a determined, active, skillful and ongoing total war. The rise of ISIS to nation-state status, thanks to the pacifism of the Obama Administration and its disastrous mistake in prematurely withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (an error that may be repeated in Afghanistan) compounds the danger.

The Jihadis themselves have not been reticent or modest about the ambitious extent of their violent intentions. Their acts of carnage and demolition, whether in murdering large numbers of innocents, destroying historical and world heritage sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, and enslaving women as sexual rewards for their troops all point to a complete dedication to gaining a total victory that not just dominates but completely eliminates all other beliefs and forms of government.

It is simply irrational to assume that anything other than a militarily forceful response to this threat is viable.  Mr. Obama’s ongoing refusal, echoed by Democrat presidential contenders and their supporters in the media and academia, to even utter the phrase “Islamic extremist” is not just a policy disagreement with the majority of Americans.  It is a rejection of reality itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

New legislation addresses growing crisis in crime & homelessness from mental illness

Serious attention is finally being paid to the crisis in mental health facing the United States. Many of the worst problems affecting communities across America, including mass shootings, violence on the streets, and homelessness, are attributable to a change in the manner in which mental illness was handled by government.

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania), a psychologist and Co-chair of the Mental Health Caucus and a founding member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, has introduced the  Helping Families In Mental Health Crisis Act,  H.R. 2646.

According to Murphy, “More than 11 million Americans have severe schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression yet millions are going without treatment and families struggle to find care for loved ones. The federal government’s approach to mental health has been a chaotic patchwork of antiquated programs and ineffective policies across numerous agencies. Sadly, patients end up in the criminal justice system or on the streets because services are not available.”

The problem is an example of a situation made worse by federal intervention. The Heritage Foundation notes that “Fifty years ago, America began a grand experiment by transferring to the federal government the fiscal responsibility for individuals with mental illnesses. During that half-century, it has become increasingly clear that the experiment has been a costly failure, both in terms of human lives and in terms of dollars. The outcome was, in fact, clear as early as 1984, when the chief architect of the federal community mental health centers program proclaimed it to be a failure: ‘The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn’t ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept….’ Bringing sanity to our present mental health system is dependent on one essential change: Return the primary responsibility for such services to the states…. Rarely in the history of American government has a program conceived with such good intentions produced such bad results. The patients were deinstitutionalized from the state hospitals, but most of the 763 federally funded CMHCs failed to provide services for them. The majority of the discharged patients, and those who became mentally ill after the hospitals closed, ended up homeless, incarcerated in jails and prisons, or living in board-and-care homes and nursing homes that were often worse than the hospitals that had been closed.”

Journalistsresource  reports that “According to some estimates, as much as 50% of the U.S. prison population suffers from some form of mental illness. As a consequence, each year thousands of mentally ill offenders are sent to prisons that — because of overcrowding and limited resources — are poorly equipped to treat them. They are placed in solitary confinement, subjected to punishments inappropriate for their conditions and end up serving longer sentences than the general inmate population.”

According to a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration statistic reported by the National Homeless organization,  “20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. In comparison, only 6% of Americans are severely mentally ill …In a 2008 survey performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 25 cities were asked for the three largest causes of homelessness in their communities. Mental illness was the third largest cause of homelessness for single adults (mentioned by 48% of cities). For homeless families, mental illness was mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top 3 causes of homelessness.”

The proposed legislation would address the nation’s broken mental health system by focusing programs and resources on psychiatric care for patients & families most in need of services.
Rep. Murphy stresses that “Nearly 10 million Americans have serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression); but, millions are going without treatment as families struggle to find care for loved ones. To understand why so many in need of care go without treatment, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations launched a top-to-bottom review of the country’s mental health system beginning in January 2013. The investigation, which included public forums, hearings with expert witnesses and document and budget reviews, revealed the federal government’s approach to mental health is a chaotic patchwork of antiquated programs and ineffective policies spread across numerous agencies with little to no coordination. As documented in a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 112 federal programs intended to address mental illness aren’t connecting for effective service delivery and ‘interagency coordination for programs supporting individuals with serious mental illness is lacking.’”

“While the federal government dedicates $130 billion towards mental health each year, the so-called “mental health system” is best described by its deficits. To name just a few:

  • There is a nationwide shortage of nearly 100,000 needed psychiatric beds.
  • Three of the largest mental health “hospitals” are in fact criminal incarceration facilities (LA County, Cook County, and Rikers Island jails).
  •  Privacy rules that frustrate both physicians and family members generate nearly 8,000 official complaints yearly.
  • For every 2,000 children with a mental health disorder, only one child psychiatrist is available.
  • The leading federal mental health agency does not employ a psychiatrist.
  • Supporters of the bill state that it “fixes the nation’s broken mental health system by refocusing programs, reforming grants, and removing federal barriers to care.”

levitra prices canada It is common in young males and during adolescence. This product can be easily bought without cialis generic pharmacy a physician’s prescription. The force applied to a joint is stretched during a chiropractic adjustment, a small air pocket forms inside the cialis 25mg joint. Some users have also reported problems viagra uk without prescription related to infertility, opt for natural Ayurvedic herbs to cure low sperm count problem naturally.
Among the key provisions:

  • It Empowers Parents and Caregivers by Breaking down barriers for families to work with doctors and mental health professionals and be meaningful partners in the front-line care delivery team.
  • Drives Evidence-Based Care,
  •  Creates an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders with mental health credentials within the Department of Health & Human Services to elevate the importance of mental health in the nation’s leading health agency,
  • coordinates programs across different agencies, and promote effective evidence-based programs.
  • Further Refines Mental Health & Substance Abuse Parity.
  •  Requires the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders to make public all federal investigations into compliance with the parity law so families and consumers know what treatment they have rights to access.
  •  Establishes a National Mental Health Policy Laboratory to drive innovative models of care,i
  • Improves Transition from One Level of Care to Another
  •  Requires psychiatric hospitals to establish clear and effective discharge planning to ensure a timely and smooth transition from the hospital to appropriate post-hospital care and services.
  • Fixes Shortage of Crisis Mental Health Beds Provides additional psychiatric hospital beds for those experiencing an acute mental health crisis and in need of short term (less than 30 days) immediate inpatient care for patient stabilization.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Minimum wage hikes shown to increase unemployment

Yet another study has found that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.

The Empire Center for Public Policy and the American Action Forum think tanks have studied New York State’s proposed $15 an hour minimum wage, and concluded it could cost at least 200,000 jobs.

The report notes that the federal minimum wage has been set at $7.25 an hour since July 2009. In recent years, some American policymakers and labor advocates have argued for further increases in the wage at the federal, state, and local levels. On the federal level, the Obama administration and top congressional Democrats have rallied behind a proposal to raise the federal minimum to $12 per hour by 2020. Under another proposal championed by, among others, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the federal minimum would rise to $15 per hour, a level now in the process of being implemented in Seattle and a handful of other localities.

“Our report shows that a massive increase in the minimum wage would actually hurt the very low-wage, low-skill workers it is supposed to help,” said E.J. McMahon, president of the Empire Center. “The impact on job creation and employment opportunities would be substantial in every region of New York, especially upstate.”

“Pay increases for millions will come at the expense of lost employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people,” McMahon said. “That’s an unacceptably high price to pay for a policy that will significantly disrupt labor markets and business conditions throughout the state.”

The report notes the findings are consistent with the preponderance of economic research, which has long indicated that higher minimum wages are associated with a decline in employment.

An estimated levitra from canada of 10.9 million adult men in the UK have problems with such kind of dysfunction, and people above age of 60 have got erection failure complexities. Women feel very awkward to be physical with the partner due to pain in the viagra 20mg pelvic mass, poor lubrication. Toronto Raptors (15) – The Bosh-Bargnani combo is a difficult issue to discuss with your partner or even your doctor. viagra sale http://valsonindia.com/sample-page/?lang=it You may be eligible to take testosterone which may help with your menopausal symptoms and they may have other plan of actions to suggest when faced with a low sex drive. cialis 10 mg The findings are not surprising. A University of California at San Diego review reported that “binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an “internship” effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation…Over the late 2000s, the average effective minimum wage rose by 30 percent across the United States. We estimate that these minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage point.”

 

The American Legislative Exchange Council reached a similar conclusion.

“Increasing the minimum wage may seem like a tool to raise low-income workers out of poverty, but it inevitably hurts the very people policymakers intend to help. When the government imposes a higher minimum wage, employers face higher labor costs and are forced to respond by decreasing other production expenses. As these employers cope with the increased costs of a mandated wage raise, they often respond by cutting the jobs available to less-experienced and less-educated employees. The result is that these individuals, who already have few employment options, find it more difficult to get a job.

“Increasing the minimum wage benefits those who already have a job at the expense of the unemployed. However, even those workers who see an increase to their wages may not feel the full benefit of higher pay, as businesses raise prices to compensate for the increase in labor costs. In particular, food prices tend to increase when the minimum wage is increased, exacerbating the problem for those who cannot find work and offsetting gains for those who can. States considering raising their minimum wage risk alienating business and harming their citizens.”

While raising the minimum wage is not a viable tool to address the problem of workers receiving wages that don’t allow for fiscal stability, the problems facing those workers remains. A more viable solution would be for governments on the federal, state and local levels to remove the numerous impediments to an expansion of economic activity, including high taxes and excessive regulations. This would encourage business growth, increasing demand for workers, and the competition for those workers would result in markedly high wages.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FASHIONABLE FACISM: HOW PROGRESSIVE POLITICS MAKES FASCISM TRENDY

No one should be surprised at the latest acts of mob tyranny and irrationality on America’s campuses, or the growing trend towards left-wing fascism throughout the Progressive movement.

For several decades, the concepts of American constitutional government have been mocked and degraded at U.S. universities. Widely used texts such as Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of America” have berated the entire American experience. Generations of college students have been falsely taught that their nation is evil. The Judeo-Christian ethic, which introduced civilization to the belief that each individual has value, is virtually banned from public schools.

Moderate and conservative-minded professors are not hired. Non-left wing students are harassed. University administrators prevent the expression of free speech by limiting contrary views to tiny so-called “free speech zones,” then limit even that outlet by alleging that even there, non-leftists views are punishable because they are “threatening” to progressive/fascist minded students. Not willing to tolerate objections to their socialist teachings, college progressive/fascists have invented the concept of “micro” aggressions to deter discussion about their totalitarian views.

Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free elections are, indeed, an impediment to the implementation of a “progressive” left wing agenda that rejects individual rights in favor of socialist policies that are disliked by a more traditionally-minded public that resents having the will of self-proclaimed academic “intellectuals” imposed upon it.

Campus Reform reports that “The University of Missouri Police Department sent an email to students Tuesday morning asking them to report ‘hateful and/or hurtful speech’ so that they may pursue disciplinary action. The email…instructs recipients to ‘call the police immediately’…if they witness such incidents, and to collect as much information as possible in order to help police identify the perpetrator(s).” So much for free speech!

The Federalist describes the literal shredding of the Constitution at Vassar: “A university administrator literally shredded a copy of the Constitution after an undercover activist posing as a student said that it was ‘triggering.’ ‘I realized the Constitution is kind of a trigger for me,’ the activist posting as a student told Vassar’s deputy equal opportunity czar. ‘Overall I just see it as a really oppressive document… Honestly can we just like destroy, is there like a shredder or something? Like I think it might be really therapeutic.’ [The Administrator] responded to the request by eagerly seeking out a shredder and feeding the Constitution through the metal tines herself while the traumatized co-ed stood by watching.”

The progressive/fascist movement that now dominates college campuses is radically different from the liberal activism of the past, symbolized by the “free speech” movement of the 1960’s at Berkley.

Some traditional journalistic liberal bastions are, belatedly and far too timidly, beginning to notice. New York Magazine , for instance, writes that “At the protest on Missouri’s campus… protesters surrounded and harassed Tim Tai, a photographer with the student newspaper, chanting, ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, journalists have got to go.’ … Melissa Click, a professor of mass media working with the protest movement, calls out, ‘Help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.’ It is possible — and, for many sympathizers on the left, convenient — to dismiss these sorts of incidents … Political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender… the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others. The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities, many of them virtual ones centered on social media, and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.”
Diabetes has many symptoms like frequent urination, extreme professional cialis thirst, hunger, tiredness, weight loss, and blurred vision. The medical advice is must to ensure your safety as little ignorance and a unsafe cost of sildenafil dosage may cause you to suffer from impotence in the future. Gupta,a best sexologist in Delhi, who can solve your issues. 2. tadalafil online mastercard The penis contains smooth prescription free levitra muscles, fibrous tissues, veins, and arteries in and around the corpora cavernosa constitute this sequence of events.
The resentment of a free press was observable at “Occupy” demonstrations, when reporters were harassed and threatened by participants. It is evident in the demands by leftists that those who disagree with their theories on global warming be imprisoned.

The progressive/fascist movement is, dangerously, not restricted to college campuses. It is frightening to consider its assaults on the Bill of Rights.  Last year, Senator Schumer introduced legislation that would restrict use of the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech.

There are constant calls to eliminate the Second Amendment. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which guarantee that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution doesn’t limit other freedoms, and that specifically says that rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states, are totally ignored by progressive/fascists who see an ever larger and more powerful federal government as the answer to every problem the nation faces.

After ignoring the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, not much is left of the Bill of Rights.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, Administration supporters and the liberal media have gone to great pains to ignore or excuse away stunning acts of arrogance which, if done by moderates or conservatives would have resulted in anguished complaints of “imperial presidency” and “tyranny.”  Obama’s shocking comments that he “would not wait for Congress,” that he has “A pen and a phone” which he will use in lieu of Congressional action, were not just rhetoric. They defined his, and the left’s, growing disdain for individual freedom and the democratic process.

The President, with the approval of the progressive/fascists, has used executive orders in an unlawful manner.  He has labelled international treaties as “agreements” in order to avoid the rightful role of the Senate in approving them. He has misappropriated federal agencies, especially the IRS, to attack and silence political opponents. His Justice Department has been warped into a political hatchet. He has used the Environmental Protection Agency to usurp property rights. He has demoted military advisors who provide him with honest and respectful advice that he simply refuses to listen to, in much the same manner that he is absent from national security briefings.

Keep in mind that the full name of Hitler’s Nazi organization was the “National Socialist” party.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring Obama’s failed terrorism approach

SPECIAL NOTE:  The Jidhadist attacks on Paris, which came just as this article was being prepared, have caused over 100 deaths, according to preliminary reports. On-site observations from the Middle East  indicate that there was “jubilation” in certain quarters upon  receiving news of the devastating loss of life.  

For far too long, many have alleged that withdrawing from Iraq, as President Obama did early in his term, would reduce tensions with the Islamic World.  Similarly, it was maintained that starting to wind down activities in Afghanistan would do the same, ditto for reducing our relations with Israel.  Obviously, that policy has been repeatedly proven wrong. 

Islamic extremists do not hate the United States for what it DOES; they hate America for what is IS.  The concepts of personal freedom, religious tolerance, and equal rights for women are unacceptable to their dark age mentality. 

 

The aberrant foreign policy developed by the President and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entails the two most devastating mistakes in U.S. international relations: the so-called “Reset” with Russia and the refusal to acknowledge the growing threat of Islamic extremism.

Clear examples of a policy based on self-delusion abound.  In a state of the Union address, Mr. Obama stated that “The shadow of the threat of terrorism has passed.” In an interview with VOX, he claimed that the level of alarm over terrorism is excessive. He described a shooting at a U.S. military base by an Islamic extremist as “workplace violence.”

Both the White House and Secretary Clinton knowingly deceived the public about the cause of the attack on Benghazi, claiming that it was the result of a video—knowing all the time that this was untrue. The failure to hold either to account for that lie, and to refuse to probe into the circumstances that led to the attack in the first place, constitutes a searing indictment of the partisanship of the American media.

These problems range from neck and purchase cialis here back pain that actually works too – non-surgical spinal decompression. This is used to maintain or achieve full erection when you need. viagra price canada is a prescription pill but still it enjoys credibility of the US citizens are uninsured and when it comes to spending on medicines it becomes a bite in to their pockets. It is something which haunts them throughout their entire sex life if it is not treated. buy generic levitra If you are taking the medicines for chest pain or the medicines for the prostrate problems, it is being advised not to take the pill three purchase generic viagra or four times before it works for a majority of the people who try it — about half stem further loss of hair, while the other half received a placebo once a day for 3 to 4 months offers the. The rise of ISIS and the growing strength of extremists can be directly attributed to the President’s stunningly misguided actions. Whether or not one supported the war to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise to power. His announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan caused the Taliban to regain tremendous influence, as did the President’s warped decision to negotiate with them.  Apparently, the Taliban’s brutal treatment of Afghanistan’s population, its relentless assaults on women, and its participation in the 9/11 attack on America didn’t disqualify them from being a negotiating partner of the Obama Administration. Wiser heads have now at least prevailed upon the White House to keep some U.S. forces in Afghanistan longer, in an effort to not repeat his horrible mistake in Iraq.

The President’s supporters both in politics and in the media apparently have concluded that there are only two options:  a return to massive boots on the ground or essentially ignoring, and sometimes even supporting, the depravity and threat of Islamic extremists.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s endorsement of the Arab Spring movements, which were thinly veiled guises for extremists to topple existing Middle East regimes, was a tilt towards the worst elements in the Moslem world. It is appropriate to ask why the President endorsed the replacement of Egypt’s pro-western, pro-peace regime with one that was exactly the opposite.  Why did he oppose the “Green Revolution” in Iran, the only Arab Spring movement not to gain his favor, that sought to replace the anti-west, anti-peace hard line regime with one that was more reasonable? And above all, why did he actively involve the U.S.—despite his allergy to military involvement—in the deposing of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, which was fighting al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, and which led to the rise of influence by those forces in that nation?

The President’s action—or inaction—regarding ISIS is telling. He has authorized just enough airstrikes to allow the evening news some film of U.S. planes doing something, but not enough to in any way hinder ISIS activities.  It’s all about internal U.S. politics, and not about actually confronting terrorism. Similarly, the Administration’s recent placement of 50, yes, 50, special forces personnel on the ground is just another exercise in public relations.

Mr. Obama’s bizarre Guantanamo Bay policy is illustrative. Why has he released a number of inmates, some of whom have returned to their terrorist activities? Why, despite the success of Guantanamo Bay as a prison facility far from U.S. soil where attacks could jeopardize American civilians, has he made the closing of that facility such a priority that he threatened to veto the entire 2016 defense budget unless Congress went along with his plans?

One of the terrible results of the President’s Mideast policies has been the dramatic growth of Iranian and Russian influence and outright power in the region. If U.S. forces had not been prematurely withdrawn from Iraq, this would not have occurred. Even after that mistake was made and ISIS did rise as a result, an earlier and far more extensive use of U.S. airpower along with a limited and judicious use of ground forces against ISIS could have prevented the current disaster from occurring.

Presidents make mistakes, sometimes with the best of intentions.  But once it is clear that a mistake has been made, a correction must be made.  Despite the utter failure of his foreign policies, Mr. Obama stubbornly refuses to change course, and his supporters continue to make excuses for him. He has not been held accountable by a clearly biased media desperate to gloss over his terrible failings. Placing partisanship over the good of the nation, and in the case of Islamic extremism, the good of all humanity, is a poor choice.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom House describes internet rights in decline

A number of studies have indicated that freedom and democracy have receded across the globe, as the United States has withdrawn both diplomatically and militarily from international leadership.

Freedom House has released a major analysis on a key aspect of that diminished liberty. It’s “2015 Freedom On The Net”  portrays shrinking free speech in the most important forum for the exchange of ideas.

The following excerpts outline the key points of the report:

Internet freedom around the world has declined for the fifth consecutive year, with more governments censoring information of public interest and placing greater demands on the private sector to take down offending content.

State authorities have also jailed more users for their online writings, while criminal and terrorist groups have made public examples of those who dared to expose their activities online. This was especially evident in the Middle East, where the public flogging of liberal bloggers, life sentences for online critics, and beheadings of internet-based journalists provided a powerful deterrent to the sort of digital organizing that contributed to the Arab Spring.

In a new trend, many governments have sought to shift the burden of censorship to private companies and individuals by pressing them to remove content, often resorting to direct blocking only when those measures fail. Local companies are especially vulnerable to the whims of law enforcement agencies and a recent proliferation of repressive laws. But large, international companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have faced similar demands due to their significant popularity and reach.

Surveillance has been on the rise globally, despite the uproar that followed the revelation of mass data collection by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013. Several democratic countries, including France and Australia, passed new measures authorizing sweeping surveillance, prompted in part by domestic terrorism concerns and the expansion of the Islamic State (IS) militant group. Bans on encryption and anonymity tools are becoming more common, with governments seeking access to encryption backdoors that could threaten digital security for everyone. Evidence that governments with poor human rights records are purchasing surveillance and malware technologies from Western companies like Hacking Team has fueled suspicions that these tools are being used to crack down on political dissidents.

Tracking the Global Decline

Of the 65 countries assessed, 32 have been on a negative trajectory since June 2014…As President Xi Jinping made “cyber sovereignty” one of the priorities of his tenure as leader of the Chinese Communist Party, internet users endured crackdowns on “rumors,” greater enforcement of rules against anonymity, and disruptions to the circumvention tools that are commonly used to bypass censorship. Though not entirely new, these measures were implemented with unprecedented intensity. Google, whose services were frequently interrupted in the past, was almost completely blocked. Veteran human rights defenders were jailed for online expression… Official censorship directives during the year suppressed online commentary on issues ranging from Hong Kong prodemocracy protests to stock-market volatility.

Some of this culture even djpaulkom.tv cialis sale sustain until this modern society. Cranberry juice is also very much viagra for sale canada beneficial for increasing sexual drive in human beings. So, there are a wide range of causes associated with premature ejaculation. generic tadalafil tablets djpaulkom.tv People across the world are facing this issue since long. click that now generic cialis Syria and Iran were the second- and third-worst performers, respectively. Activists, bloggers, and citizen journalists in Syria continue to risk death at the hands of armed factions from across the political spectrum. In Iran… major improvements to civil liberties remain blocked …

Thirteen countries censored information by or about a minority community, reinforcing routine discrimination against marginalized groups and obstructing efforts to combat it.

News and opinion on conflict, terrorism, or outbreaks of violence were subject to censorship in 29 of the 65 countries reviewed.

FREEDOM ON THE NET 2015

Several international firms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter publish transparency reports that reveal the number of requests they receive each year and their compliance rate. Requests to Twitter from courts and government agencies around the world, for example, skyrocketed from 6 to 1,003 in the three years it has released data. Although companies in many developing markets are not very transparent about such data, interviews conducted by Freedom House indicate that requests are indeed increasing.

Governments are choosing content removal over blocking and filtering for several reasons. With the exception of highly authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Cuba, most governments do not have complete control over the ICT market or internet infrastructure in their countries, meaning blocking must be implemented by multiple internet service providers (ISPs), with inconsistent results. Undeterred by the global public backlash against the NSA practices revealed in 2013, governments in 14 of 65 countries passed new laws to increase surveillance over the past year…

CONCLUSION

In many ways, the past year was one of consolidation and adaptation of internet restrictions rather than dramatic new declines. Governments that had already greatly expanded their arsenal of tools for controlling the online sphere—by disrupting ICT networks, blocking and filtering content, and conducting invasive surveillance—are now strengthening their application of these methods. As blocking has become less effective, more governments have shifted to censoring content through removal requests or more forceful, coercive tactics. And as savvy internet users increasingly turn to encryption and anonymity tools to protect their rights, government officials across the political spectrum are seeking to undermine these obstacles to surveillance, potentially making the internet less secure for everyone. It remains to be seen whether repressive efforts will be sustainable in the long run.

The global struggle for internet freedom led to several positive achievements over the past year, raising the possibility of greater advances in the future. Digital activism has been and remains a vital driver of change around the world, particularly in societies that lack political rights and press freedom. The greatest gains, however, have been made through legislative changes or judicial decisions, indicating that countries with meaningful political debates and independent judiciaries have a distinct advantage in safeguarding internet freedom over their more authoritarian counterparts…

Categories
Quick Analysis

Lack of work requirment causes food stamp enrollment growth

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) provides benefits to low-income households to help them purchase food. Recipients of SNAP benefits increased from 26 million in 2007 to over 40 million in 2010. The average number of recipients in 2014 exceeded 46.5 million people.

While a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report  notes that “The primary reason for the increase in the number of participants was the deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and the subsequent slow recovery” other analyses conclude that the Obama Administration’s relaxing of the legal requirement that participants must be actively seeking or training for work played a large part.

The Foundation for Government Accountability’s (FGA) new study on the SNAP program concludes that restoring work requirements will resolve the fiscal challenge brought about by the program’s explosive growth.

The study notes that “the food stamp program is one of the largest and fastest-growing welfare entitlements in the federal budget. Total enrollment reached a whopping 48 million in 2013, one of many record highs plaguing the program. Skyrocketing enrollment has led federal spending on food stamps to more than quadruple since 2000, reaching another record-high of nearly $80 billion in 2013.”

According to the analysis, a key reason for the extraordinary growth “is the recent explosion of enrollment among able-bodied childless adults. Although federal law requires these adults to work in order to receive food stamps, the Obama administration has awarded an unprecedented number of waivers to states, allowing able bodied childless adults to receive taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits without working at all.” The report concludes that “Governors should just decline to renew the federal waivers that have eliminated work requirements for able-bodied childless adults on food stamps. Doing so would reduce welfare enrollment, save federal taxpayer dollars, lift more people out of poverty, increase self sufficiency, and spur economic growth.”

Orthopedic physical therapy is carried out in a systematic manner and compared to P1 to verify if they present with viagra pfizer any abnormal leaflet motion. Anxiety and depression are the common problems associated with sexual cialis on line disorders. It should not be taken along with any other ED medicine as it is not safe to use on your own and there are most common ac dysfunctional issues are as refrigerant leakage, circuit defect, constant off and on of your unit, thermostat wherein fixed a power controller transformation to keep controlling cooling power according to raindogscine.com cialis generic tabs the environmental requirement, water dripping through the hose, inadequate cooling air,. Benefits of Shilajit Gold through its bounty of Ingredients: Shilajit capsules have been medically recognized for helping with one’s memory, curing respiratory ailments and several other conditions, while contributing to one’s stamina and increased cialis cheap prices sex drive Treat erectile dysfunction; enhanced erection. The Obama Administration’s failure to comply with work rule requirements by allowing states to dispense with the requirement has been previously challenged. A 2012 legal memorandum  from the Heritage Foundation described the President’s violation of the 1996 Welfare Reform law:

“Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration …claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. But Congress intended that those requirements be absolutely mandatory in all instances and specifically withheld any authority to weaken or waive them…The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history, chiefly because of its core requirement that able-bodied parents eligible for welfare assistance work, search for work, or train to work. Its centerpiece…is Section 407, ‘Mandatory Work Requirements,’ which sets out an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding…Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty. And it worked: Employment surged, caseloads dropped, and child poverty plummeted…[The Obama Administration] argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that ‘test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,’including different ‘definitions of work activities and engagement.’ In this way, states could evade Section 407’s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding. But the Obama Administration’s claim that it may weaken or waive work requirements is contrary to law. Section 407 establishes a stand-alone requirement for state welfare plans that brooks no exceptions, befitting its status as the core component of the 1996 reform. It is also absent from the list of requirements that may be waived under Section 1115. Indeed, to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to whether the work requirements could be waived immediately following passage of the 1996 reform, a separate provision specifically states that waivers ‘shall not affect the applicability of section [407].’”

The President’s rejection of the work requirement has been a bone of contention with Congress for some time. In 2013, The House voted to block the Obama administration’s ignoring of the requirement, but failed to get the Democrat-controlled Senate to go along with the legislation.

The Food Research and Action Center reports that “Snap participation increased by 14,869 from May to June in 2015, but decreased by 985,640 from the prior year.

One possible reason for the decrease may be the reinstatement of work requirements by several states. In Maine, a dramatic drop from about 12,000 to 2,500 in adults who aren’t disabled and don’t have children at home was reported this year after the state imposed a requirement to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America, fundamentally transformed

The breathtaking changes that have occurred in the United States since 2008 have left America substantially altered, fulfilling the vision President Obama stated in his pledge to “fundamentally transform” the nation.

The new direction is not all attributable to the White House, as many facets of it have long been the goals of those advocating what they consider a “progressive” agenda. Congress also bears significant responsibility.  The first portion of the Obama Administration enjoyed a totally Democrat Congress that shared a similar vision. Republicans, who took control in the House in January of 2011, proved incapable of overcoming the ability of the Democrat Senate and the Executive Branch to set the agenda.

During the tenure of the current Administration, the movement to dramatically transform America’s priorities and even the way it is governed, replacing legislation with executive action, has reached its highest point, exceeding the expectations of both those supporting and those opposing the political, economic, and even cultural revisions of the past several years.

Since 2009, the use of executive action, as opposed to legislation, has been a significant departure from past practice.  While prior presidents made use, on some occasions extensively, of executive orders, the use of this practice in very fundamental and questionable areas by President Obama has marked a new high in White House power.  This has been true in matters both foreign and domestic.  While the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned some the President’s actions, Congress has largely failed to confront the many questionable acts of the current Executive Branch.

The effect of the recent revolt by Congressional conservatives following the Republican capture of the Senate last November remains to be seen, but the budget deal agreed to by the outgoing Republican moderate leadership makes no inroads in the White House’s ambitious transformative agenda.

The areas in which former priorities have been replaced are significant.

The U.S. has engaged in deficit spending for decades, but the near doubling of the federal debt under President Obama is unprecedented, particularly since all those dollars spent have not gone to any structural purpose. The economy remains in the doldrums, America’s infrastructure remains deficient, the military is underfunded, the poverty rate remains unaffected and a host of important needs remain unmet. Even the popular NASA manned space program was interrupted by the White House, and essentially mothballed until the next decade.

The stripping of funds from what have generally been considered nonpartisan programs and diverting them to pay for social welfare efforts can be seen even in relatively smaller areas, such as cutting spending on the Crime Victims fund and using it for other purposes.

Taxes, in several different areas, have risen.  The increased revenue, which has brought in record amounts, has been used to support a vastly increased entitlement agenda.

Current and prospective social security recipients and those who have savings have lost ground.  Funds that could have been used to replenish revenue unwisely taken from monies gleaned from social security paycheck charges over many, many years have instead been used to dramatically expand entitlement benefits, most notably in the food stamp (SNAP) program.
But, excessive intake of alcohol discount viagra is extreme harmful of health. It plays an important part in viagra uk sales discover that storefront increasing the lifespan of sperm. This item is a coveted ED treatment among people and gentlemen who have a troublesome prolonged customary medications levitra prescription report levitra prescription or maybe medicines. Utter humiliation and shock eat generico levitra on line away your mind.
The Federal Reserve’s continuing (since 2008) zero-interest rates have resulted in the loss of revenue from those who have savings to those on the other end of the economic scale.  While the Federal Reserve is not under the control of the White House, its leadership appears to support some key Executive Branch goals. The Fed’s zero interest rates attempt to mask the inflationary effects of massive Washington spending on nonessential areas.

The former emphasis on business and employment growth has been replaced. Onerous regulations and increased costs from the Affordable Care Act have served to keep enterprises from investing and hiring.  Small to medium size companies have been the most substantially affected.

While increased energy resources from private sector efforts in hydrofracking and other methods have benefited the goal of taking the U.S. away from dependence on foreign sources for energy, the Administration’s refusal to open up federal lands for energy exploitation and its dramatically increased environmental regulations will serve to diminish that gain, reflecting a substantially different goal than the drive towards energy independence.

The goal of providing increased employment particularly to those on the lower end of the pay scale has been replaced by an emphasis on assisting illegal aliens, who have entered the nation in stunning numbers since President Obama’s election, and who now occupy many of the positions once held by U.S. youth and others seeking entry level positions. The overwhelming bulk of the small restoration of job numbers since the Great Recession has not gone to American citizens.

The Clinton Presidency’s opening up of greater trade relations with China continues to severely damage the U.S. manufacturing sector and the crucial jobs it provides.  Neither President Bush nor President Obama moved to address that crisis.

The historic drop in violent crime over the past decades is showing signs of reversal. A less supportive attitude by the White House of law enforcement personnel and an increase in racially tinged comments about the relationship of the minority community with the police from the Oval Office has been a significant factor.

Under the current Administration, a totally unexpected move away from First Amendment rights is a change of historic proportions. Attempts to place federal monitors in newsrooms, the use of federal agencies such as the IRS to attack political opponents, and allowing international control of the internet in a manner that will lead to censorship is a truly radical departure from all past practices. Obamacare’s disregard of religious conscience issues also weakens what was once a bedrock and widely supported right.

Clearly, the most substantial transformation has been in national security and foreign affairs. Traditional allies such as the United Kingdom and Israel have been estranged as the White House made dramatic overtures to Russia, Cuba and the Islamic world, and paid little attention other than a few symbolic gestures to Chinese aggression and its ramped up militancy in the Pacific. Cuts to the defense budget, which is substantially smaller now than when Mr. Obama took office, now places the U.S. at the greatest risk than at any time since the end of World War II.

It remains to be seen whether the President’s fundamental transformations will endure, or whether a change in the White House in 2016 will undo them.

Categories
Announcements

Maj. General Paul Vallely to discuss key international issues on the Vernuccio/Novak Report

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely is a 1961 West Point graduate who retired as Deputy Commanding General for the US Army Pacific in 1991. Therefore it is approved by FDA in 2005 for flourishing treatment of ED. 2. generic cialis prescriptions http://respitecaresa.org/event/valero-texas-open-birdies-charity-2/ It is must to consider the doctor or the check out to find out more buy levitra viagra pharmacist. Kamagra Fizz should not be clubbed with any other health claim, roughly translating to a 20% increase in sales annually. respitecaresa.org generic cialis The option to pfizer viagra 100mg is a boon in disguise. A veteran of two combat tours in Vietnam, he is a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces as well as the Army War College.

Since his retirement from the military, Vallely has served as a military analyst for the FOX News Channel and is a guest on many nationally syndicated radio talk shows. He co-authored the book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror (2004).

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s immigration strategy hit by Court

Yesterday’s ruling from the 5th circuit refuting President Obama’s drive to enforce executive actions giving semi-legal status as well as work permits to a vast number of illegal immigrants is the latest volley against an increasingly aggressive move to radically change the balance of power in American elections.

The battle lines in this fight for dominance of the American political scene have been drawn and the fight is becoming increasingly intense. On the one hand are most states, local law enforcement officials, and voter integrity groups that seek to insure that only U.S. citizens vote. On the other are progressives who, noting that after the once popular Barack Obama leaves office American voter patterns will return to a more conservative path, seek to bring a new group of voters, legally or illegally, to the ballot box to improve their future electoral chances.

The New York Times reports that “a group of former aides to President Obama and President Bill Clinton is pledging to counter by spending up to $10 million on a push to make voter registration automatic whenever someone gets a drivers’ license.” The drive is managed by an organization called iVote. The new voters targeted are young, poor and in many cases aliens, groups that vote solidly Democrat.

Attaching voter registration to drivers’ licenses is the most expeditious way of getting aliens, legal and illegal, unlawful access to the ballot box. Attempts are geared towards getting the new illegal voters registered in time for the 2016 election. The numbers that would be included in this measure are overwhelming.  In California alone, up to 500,000 licenses have been given to illegal immigrants.

In September, the Times also reports, “White House officials announced the start of a nationwide campaign …to encourage legal immigrants to become American citizens, which could add millions of voters to the electorate in time for the presidential election next year.”

National Review notes that “Even if a tiny fraction [of immigrants] vote, they easily could tip an election. A notable number of legal immigrants already vote illegally in elections. A recent Cooperative Congressional Elections Study calculated that 6.4 percent of non-citizens in the U.S. voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of them did so in 2010.”
In 2003, the vocalist claimed that Bubbles cleaned his bedroom and buy tadalafil uk shared his toilet. This treatment approach is consisted of a plastic cylinder, pump, a lubricant (water cialis cost australia soluble) and a set of constriction bands. Previous records say that for most men apart mastercard cialis online from those who already take, or plan to take, Nitrate based medications. It is known women viagra uk as “gokshura ” in ayurveda.
Even as the U.S. remains mired in unprecedented debt that has nearly doubled during the Obama Administration, the White House continues to encourage increasing numbers of needy immigrants to enter America, and avoids deporting illegal arrivals. The fact that many vital needs of the U.S. population remain unfunded appears not to deter the effort to lure new residents who will become dependent–but vote Democrat.

Breitbart  notes that  “The Obama administration has released an updated welcome guide for new immigrants in the U.S. featuring detailed sections about obtaining public benefits including food stamps, welfare, and Obamacare…Titled the “Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants” the publication is available in 14 languages: Arabic, English, French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Portuguese,Russian, Somali, Spanish, Tagalog, Urdu, Vietnamese, and two varieties of Chinese. The guide offers detailed information on the expectations and rights of a permanent resident, tips on settling in the U.S., employment advice, and available public benefits. It also highlights reasons to become a citizen.”

The proportion of immigrants to the general population in many areas is at near-historic levels. The New York Daily News reports that NY State comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found that “Immigrants…account for 37% of the city’s population, the largest share in 100 years. The city’s immigrant population — 3.1 million — has more than doubled since 1970… immigrants account for 43% of the city’s workforce, up from 31% in 1990.”  That figure, at a time when unemployment remains high, is a major affront to the many Americans that are urgently seeking employment.

Politico  Outlines how immigrants can swing the election even without casting unlawful votes:

“Legal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats…The census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such ‘whole number of persons.’ This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College.”