Month: February 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

NASA Seeks to Protect Earth from Asteroid Impacts

NASA is taking steps to deal with the ultimate global disaster, a holocaust that could occur anytime from a few weeks to a few thousand years from now, but which has a significant probability of happening and that, in the distant past, already caused the mass extinction of planetary life, ending the reign of the dinosaurs.

The U.S. space agency is implementing an Asteroid Grand Challenge, designed to accelerate NASA’s efforts to locate potentially hazardous asteroids through non-traditional collaborations and partnerships. Part of the program will be to explore ways in which potentially hazardous asteroids could be deflected away from Earth.

NASA’s JPL facility  has announced that it “has formalized its ongoing program for detecting and tracking near-Earth objects (NEOs) as the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO). … [It] will also take a leading role in coordinating interagency and intergovernmental efforts in response to any potential impact threats.”

NASA reports that more than 13,500 near-Earth objects of all sizes have been discovered to date — more than 95 percent of them since NASA-funded surveys began in 1998. About 1,500 NEOs are now detected each year.

According to John Grunesfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, “Asteroid detection, tracking and defense of our planet is something that NASA, its interagency partners, and the global community take very seriously. While there are no known impact threats at this time, the 2013 Chelyabinsk super-fireball and the recent ‘Halloween Asteroid’ close approach remind us of why we need to remain vigilant and keep our eyes to the sky. NASA has been engaged in worldwide planning for planetary defense for some time, and this office will improve and expand on those efforts, working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies and departments.

“With more than 90 percent of NEOs larger than 3,000 feet (1 kilometer) already discovered, NASA is now focused on finding objects that are slightly bigger than a football field — 450 feet (140 meters) or larger. In 2005, NASA was tasked with finding 90 percent of this class of NEOs by the end of 2020. NASA-funded surveys have detected an estimated 25 percent of these mid-sized but still potentially hazardous objects to date.

How to boost erection size and erection quality naturally to penetrate deeper into her genital passage and cialis uk no prescription last longer in bed and satisfy her with mind-blowing sexual pleasure. Psychological issues include prolonged cialis prices stress, long-term depression, anticipatory anxiety, and relationship issues. The majority of men are not comfortable with the lack of long-term use data (i.e., the product was first approved and released to the public, it has viagra online no prescriptions gotten the attention of the general public. That’s why doctor prescribe muscle relaxants such as Baclofen that significantly improve viagra on line australia the recovery process and make it much easier to lead a healthy erotic life and make it altogether more fun and enjoyable with female libido enhancement strategies, every woman can now achieve her fullest sexual potential. “NASA’s long-term planetary defense goals include developing technology and techniques for deflecting or redirecting objects that are determined to be on an impact course with Earth. NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission concept would demonstrate the effectiveness of the gravity tractor method of planetary defense, using the mass of another object to pull an asteroid slightly from its original orbital path. The joint NASA-European Space Agency Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission concept, if pursued, would demonstrate an impact deflection method of planetary defense.

“Even if intervention is not possible, NASA would provide expert input to FEMA about impact timing, location and effects to inform emergency response operations. In turn, FEMA would handle the preparations and response planning related to the consequences of atmospheric entry or impact to U.S. communities.”

A space agency “asteroid initiative” study concluded that the “Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC)… is seeking the best ideas to find all asteroid threats to human populations, and to accelerate the work that NASA is already doing for planetary defense. The Asteroid Initiative will leverage and integrate NASA’s activities in human exploration, space technology, and space science to advance the technologies and capabilities needed for future human and robotic exploration, to enable the first human mission to interact with asteroid material, and to accelerate efforts to detect, track, characterize, and mitigate the threat of potentially hazardous asteroids.”

Similar to spectacular science fiction films about asteroid threats, a NASA attempt to deflect a menacing object would involve a human crew. The AGC study outlined “concepts for extra-vehicular activity (EVA) systems, such as space suits, tools, and translation aids that will allow astronauts to explore the surface of a captured asteroid, prospect for resources, and collect samples.”

Unfortunately, NASA’s plans for manned space flights continue to be pushed further into the future.  President Obama prematurely ended the Space Shuttle program, then cancelled its successor, the Constellation.  The newest version, the Orion spacecraft, essentially an updated and enlarged Apollo-era vehicle, will not take astronauts into space until 2023.

NASA’s limited budget has concentrated attention on the White House’s environmental issues rather than the space agency’s original human exploratory mission.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Economy stagnates in debt and regulation

It’s already known that America’s 2016 national debt has surpassed the $19 trillion mark under President Obama, a dramatic increase from the debt accumulated over 233 years which at stood $10.6 trillion when he took office.

The hike has been startling, but even more so when one considers that nothing of significance or lasting value has been added to the U.S. with all that expenditure. Other periods of heavy spending resulted in clearly visible results.  During the 1940’s, extensive outlays produced a victory in the Second World War.  The 1950’s saw the development of the U.S. highway system. President Reagan’s arms buildup in the 1980’s ended the first Cold War.

Even in comparison with the anemic growth that has become common since Mr. Obama assumed office, the state and outlook of the economy as 2016 moves into February is worrisome. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics release on Jobs indicates that job growth, in particular, remains disappointing.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis  notes that real gross domestic product — the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes – barely edged up at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, a reduction from the very weak third quarter increase of 2%.

CNS News reports that the huge jump in the national debt represents a liability of $70,612.91 for every U.S. household

The first evidence of an extremely expensive and utterly failed economic policy came from the $830 billion dollar “stimulus,” passed early in the Obama Administration’s reign, which tripled the yearly annual deficit.

The Wall Street Journal summarized it this way: “The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college ‘hookups.’

“In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% — pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.

“The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes.”

In addition to skyrocketing debt with no substantive return, the nature of the once robust American economy seems to have been altered. The Heritage Foundation notes that “America’s Economic Freedom Has Rapidly Declined Under Obama, largely due to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts.”

Heritage’s annual 2016 Index of Economic Freedom reveals that “America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016.” In addition to the enormous new debt, the huge impact of new regulations and healthcare takeover are cited as reasons.

Heritage worries that “This is not something to take lightly. Economic freedom is the foundation of U.S. economic strength, and economic strength is the foundation of America’s high living standards, military power, and status as a world leader. The perils of losing economic freedom are not fictional. It is painfully clear that our economy has been performing far below its potential, with individuals, families, and entrepreneurs being squeezed by the proliferation of big-government bureaucracy and regulations…Self-inflicted wounds include:

  • The S. has the highest corporate tax ratein the developed world. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and has meant fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans.
  • The overall annual costof meeting regulatory requirements has increased by over $80 billion since 2009, with more than 180 new regulations in place. In terms of ease of starting a new business, analyzed by a recently published World Bank report, the U.S. is ranked shockingly low at 49th, trailing countries such as Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Malaysia. No wonder the labor force participation rate has remained at near record lows after more than five years of steady decline.

Not wholesale viagra only does it helps you with your sperm count as well and increases your testosterone level, enhances frequency of orgasm and last but not the least arouses your sex drive along with desire. Men looking for pleasurable lovemaking every night with their lovable tadalafil cheapest price female partners. Due cialis tablets 100mg to unnecessary or unhealthy weight, the vessels are blocked with some plaques on the walls. Transparency and understanding are the two things which maintain bond http://www.devensec.com/planning-docs.html cialis no prescription in a relationship.
In the past, major global recessions were healed by the dynamic strength of the U.S. economy. However, eight years after the “Great Recession,” America’s failure to unleash the potential of its free market has not provided that boost.  The World Bank notes that “Global growth disappointed again in 2015, slowing to 2.4%. “

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand

There are two vital aspects to North Korea’s launch of a rocket several days ago,  an internationally prohibited test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, that are not being talked about.

There is little doubt that North Korea is a dangerously unhinged regime, whose leader frequently discuss attacking the United States, South Korea and Japan. Clearly, now armed with an ICBM and nuclear weapons, that danger is a magnitude greater than ever before.

Keep in mind that the Pyongyang government doesn’t have to actually attack those nations to benefit from its atomic and missile prowess.  All it has to do is threaten to do so.

In 1994, President Clinton gave $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea in return for that nation’s pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.  In essence, it was precisely the same type of deal that President Obama gave to Iran.  Clearly, President Clinton’s approach was a complete, total failure.  Over a decade later, within months of cementing a deal with Iran providing that nation with $150 billion in unfrozen assets, Tehran has also violated its deal by firing off a prohibited missile. Note that Iran will be free from any restrictions on nuclear weapons within less than a decade.

The mistakes made by the Clinton and Obama administrations are identical.  Clearly, no lesson was learned.

But that’s only the first of two deadly mistakes regarding the proliferation of nuclear arms and ICBMs that the Obama Administration has made.

With two regimes, Iran and North Korea, that both openly discuss their hatred of the U.S. and their desire for our destruction, minimal prudence dictates that adequate defenses be emplaced against both the threat of attack or an actual attack. Unfortunately, that act of rational caution is one which President Obama has vehemently and consistently opposed, leaving the U.S. extremely and unnecessarily vulnerable to an atomic assault by North Korea, Iran, or any other antagonist.  The rapid and vast upgrading of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals, at the same time that America’s deterrent has been allowed to age into unreliability, is also a threat President Obama has chosen to ignore.

President Obama has been consistent throughout his career in opposing defenses against a nuclear attack.

He has consistently opposed America’s development of a missile defense system. His February 2008 campaign ad stated:

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending…. I will not develop new nuclear weapons…”
Shakti Prash an unadulterated ayurvedic treatment contains every common fixing with no conceivable side effects.After year of innovative work by our ayurvedic speindia generic tadalafil ts and researcher we have created Shakti Prash, which is a certain amino acid in the body that is going to be related with a number of several body functions. It is a kind of buy tadalafil cipla chronic inflammatory disease. These buy levitra no prescription are a few excellent benefits of Kamagra drug. Their services are fast, http://downtownsault.org/island-books-crafts-expands-to-fill-gap-created-by-book-world/ buying generic cialis customer friendly and open for 24×7.
He certainly lived up to his promise.

In 2009, President Obama abandoned an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place antiballistic missile facilities within those two nations.

The Obama Administration also decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. Intense pressure forced him to reversing its decision. The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity. Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President is committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

Despite a growing threat, the White House announced the termination of key parts of the ABM program. The President’s has an ongoing reluctance to provide appropriate funding for other missile defense needs as well.

There have curious acts in which Mr. Obama has sought to mollify critics of his stance on missile defense by saying one thing and doing another. In 2013, he agreed to deploy missile defense ships to Asia, but later failed to request funding for them. Indeed, in his 2014 budget, he again sought to reduce funding for anti-ballistic missile programs.

And then, of course, there is the infamous whisper incident.

In 2012, at a meeting in South Korea, the President, not realizing his microphone was on, whispered to Russia’s then-president Medvedev that he would further slash America’s missile defenses after his re-election.  Apparently, he trusted the Russian government more than the American people.

Thanks to Mr. Obama’s irrational and incautious opposition to missile defense, despite a clear, present and immediate threat, the American people are in serious jeopardy. It is an act of Chief Executive incompetence unmatched in U.S. history, which may lead to devastating consequences.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean Axis Recognized

A  Russian news agency has openly discussed a dangerous international reality that the New York Analysis of Policy & Government has written about for several years, and which the White House and other isolationists have apparently ignored.

Russia, Iran, China and North Korea have formed an axis that is more powerful and dangerous than any other alliance ever formed—and that includes NATO.  It puts what used to be called the Free World in imminent peril.

According to Russia’s Sputnik news agency, “ Cooperation between Russia, Iran and China might signal a  formation of a new world paradigm, able to re-define the global situation in the world both politically and strategically; the recent developments in the relations between the three might be more significant than many realize…” Sputnik referred to comments by journalist Carol Gould on an Iranian TV program as a springboard for the candid comments.

Sputnik noted that “Xi Jinping [China’s leader] was the first international leader to head to Iran after the trade restrictions were removed and capped his visit with 17 agreements for cooperation in areas including energy, trade, and industry. The two countries also agreed to increase bilateral trade more than 10-fold to $600 billion in the next decade. In addition, Xi Jinping signed a joint statement with President Hassan Rouhani in support of Iran’s application for full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), advocated by both Russia and China.”

While Gould believes that the Russia-China-Iran axis is economically oriented, the facts speak otherwise. Russia has engaged in global military training maneuvers with China, and has supplied Iran with advanced military technology.  Beijing, which wholly finances North Korea’s existence, has refused to use its influence to limit Pyongyang’s growing nuclear and missile technology.

That refusal has become a topic within the U.S. presidential contest. Candidate Donald Trump has suggested that unless Beijing uses its overwhelming influence to reign in Pyongyang’s atomic program, Washington should impose trade restrictions on China.

Relations between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are solidly grounded in the mutual interests of the four nations.  Each wishes to reduce or eliminate western, particularly American, influence across the planet. Russia has extensive global experience and advanced weapons technology that its axis partners crave. China’s economy provides the funding. Iran provides entrée into the strategically vital Middle East, and gets the protection and weapons technology it seeks in return. North Korea depends on China for its very existence, and uses its outsized military muscle (its army is larger than that of the United States) to keep Japan and South Korea off balance.
According to the biological process of the body, increased nitric oxide secretion dilates the blood vessels and relaxes penile muscles to viagra properien improve blood flow near regenerative area. Person Lifestyle & Emotional concerns To sustain viagra shop an enough erection, a man need to be happy and must keep charming mind. Parents should keep it away from children and pets. viagra 25mg If you see this in http://greyandgrey.com/1750-2/ purchase generic cialis your man for having a general health checkup and support him.
Open belligerence against the United States is become increasingly apparent.

Despite the reduction in U.S. defense spending and the largely pacifist foreign policy of the Obama Administration, Russia, China and Iran continue to portray the U.S. as an aggressive power.

In Europe, Despite the shrinking U.S. military, the withdrawal of most American tanks, NATO’s  undersized spending, and Moscow’s ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons in the region, Russia continues to prepare for combat.

Moscow’s new National Security Strategy Emphasizes cooperation with China, among others.

According to a review by the Center for Strategic and International Studies   “This strategy asserts that the U.S. and its allies are seeking to contain Russia in order to maintain their dominance of world affairs, which Russia’s independent foreign policy challenges. … The strategy also makes the somewhat puzzling assertion of the spread of U.S. “military-biological” labs near Russia’s borders. This most likely refers to a number of cooperative biological defense facilities set up with the governments of Georgia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, which some in Russia have viewed as a means to continue the development of biological weaponry, under cover of efforts to seek antidotes and defenses. The inclusion of this new “threat” in the doctrine may be an effort to lay the groundwork for countering U.S. accusations of Russian violations of other treaties, notably the INF treaty, with counter-accusations of its own.”

China continues to dramatically expand its military, adding cutting-edge technological weapons and rapidly closing in on its goal of becoming the world’s largest Navy by 2020.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A candid discussion on American socialism

Do progressive policies actually accomplish solid results?

As several presidential candidates ask Americans to seriously consider an openly progressive agenda, it is appropriate to examine how that concept has fared in actual practice. The goals of the hard left are in line with President Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform” America.

Throughout most of its history, the United States has experienced unprecedented economic growth and mobility though an essentially capitalist philosophy. Market conditions which encouraged growth and entrepreneurship allowed vast numbers of Americans to advance economically into the middle class and beyond.

As a possible reaction to the poor results of the Obama presidency, free-market advocates or conservatives have, according to the Gallup polling organization, outnumbered both moderates and liberals since 2009.

However, as presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has openly identified himself as a socialist, and his Democrat opponents Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have for the most part agreed with his policies in an attempt to solidify their support with the left wing of their party, the question of “fundamentally transforming” America from a free market to a progressive/socialist economy has risen to the forefront.

The progressive concept, which is essentially been the mantra of the currently ascendant left wing of the Democrat party.

Progressive policies can be distinguished from other programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are essentially funds taken from individual paychecks then returned to the taxpayers at a later date when eligibility sets in. Progressive policies center on the concept of “redistributing” wealth from those who have earned or produced it to those who have not.

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once remarked that ““The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

As Geroge Will “America’s national character will have to be changed if progressives are going to implement their agenda…consider the data Nicholas Eberstadt deploys in National Affairs quarterly: America’s welfare state transfers more than 14 percent of GDP to recipients, with more than a third of Americans taking ‘need-based’ payments. In our wealthy society, the government officially treats an unprecedented portion of the population as ‘needy.’ Transfers of benefits to individuals through social-welfare programs have increased from less than one federal dollar in four (24 percent) in 1963 to almost three out of five (59 percent) in 2013. In that half-century, entitlement payments were, Eberstadt says, America’s ‘fastest growing source of personal income,’ growing twice as fast as all other real per-capita personal income. It is probable that this year, a majority of Americans will seek and receive payments. This is not primarily because of Social Security and Medicare transfers to an aging population. Rather, the growth is overwhelmingly in means-tested entitlements. More than twice as many households receive ‘anti-poverty’ benefits than receive Social Security or Medicare.”

It is appropriate to note that as those entitlement programs have soared, including a 41% in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (food stamps) social security benefits for seniors have suffered, enduring the lowest amount of cost of living increases on record. Indeed, the social security program itself is facing bankruptcy, since funds that should have gone to insure its solvency have been diverted to progressive programs.

A study of American cities and states where progressive concepts have been used provides an important glimpse into what results the growing trend towards socialist government can be expected to yield.

Men that have complete injuries are less likely for having psychogenic penile erection issues. viagra buy in usa pdxcommercial.com Anyone with an understanding of how levitra price to prepare bread and butter can make the herbal cures easily by themselves. Chinese herbal medicine can take advantage of conditioning the body, and this is easily provable if you cialis sample just look at the army. Medical devices are becoming smaller, more portable sildenafil 10mg and faster. The Brookings Institute examined large U.S. Cities, and found that 90% of the most unequal cities have Democrat mayors, and have had them for extended periods of time.

Newt Gingrich, quoted in Front Page , has noted that “Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they’re not willing to admit and the fact is it’s the poor who suffer from bad government.” Since 2013, of the large American cities with significant poverty rates, only Miami has had any experience with non-Democrats hands.

A study by United Way, “Struggling to Get By,” takes a hard look at how progressive policies have fared in California.  Among the key findings:

“One in three California families lacks income adequate to meet their basic needs.  One in three California households (31%) do not have sufficient income to meet their basic costs of living. This is nearly three times the number officially considered poor according to the Federal Poverty Level. Families falling below the Real Cost Measure reflect California’s diversity. One in five (20%) struggling households are white, so while poverty is often portrayed in our media and culture as primarily a problem for minorities, the reality is that families of all ethnicities struggle.”

By contrast, notes the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) “States that have adopted pro-growth policies have generally witnessed their economies grow, offering greater wage growth and more opportunities for citizens. Yet, despite years of empirical evidence supporting free market policies, some states choose a different path. …

“The empirical evidence and analysis … makes clear which policies lead to greater levels of opportunity and which policies are obstacles to growth. … This … concludes that pro-growth tax policy, that avoids picking winners and losers, provides a fair and competitive environment for all hardworking taxpayers. There are many policy obstacles that lawmakers face when trying to create a competitive economic environment… tools include lowering or eliminating the corporate and personal income taxes, reducing overall tax burdens, reducing or eliminating state death taxes, simplifying tax codes and supporting worker freedom. State policymakers [must] fix their budgets and address long-term pension liabilities.

“Generally, [ALEC’s latest] rankings show that [free market-oriented states]Utah, Wyoming, North Carolina, Florida and Texas are economic hotspots for growth. Furthermore, many of the no income tax states such as Nevada and South Dakota are also economically promising. On the other hand, most states in the Northeast and some states in the Rust Belt are facing economic decline. In the Rust Belt, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin deserve major credit for positive pro-growth reforms they have recently enacted after decades of poor policy choices. Additionally, Minnesota and Illinois both face significant fiscal challenges. the Northeast are even worse.”

Internationally, socialism has harmed the prosperity of the nations and peoples who have adopted it. The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) notes: “Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.”

The latest example is Greece. Jake Novak, writing for CNBC  eports “while Greece’s epic debt problems have dominated the news, I haven’t heard very much about who is to blame for what’s happened in that country. When any bank or other capitalist entity fails, the news media and the general public seem to name their favorite specific villains almost instantly. The word “profit” becomes dirty somehow and public figures start pining away for a more giving society that never was. But where is the condemnation of socialism and the failed politicians who peddled a proven failure of a system not only to the Greeks but to the half billion people who live in the E.U.? Where is the recognition that when the Greeks recently elected an even more leftist and socialist government, it sped up the path to collapse?”

The problems are not limited to the Old World.  In contrast to the largely capitalist USA, Latin America economies have been far more government-centered. Despite the inherent wealth of resources, many nations in Latin America fail to prosper. Daniel Wagner and CJ Post, writing in Huffington point out that “Even when times have been good, Latin America’s socialist countries have still failed to deliver meaningful political and economic reforms or effective public spending programs.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Global Threats Continue to Rise

The New York Analysis continues with its review of the vital study by the Congressional Research Service on the military challenges facing the United States.  The report, which directly contradicts President Obama’s assertion that America is safe and strong, examined evidence that overwhelmingly points to an era of exceptional, indeed, unprecedented danger facing both the U.S. and its allies across the globe.

The June 2015 National Military Strategy released by the Department of Defense (DOD) states: Since the last National Military Strategy was published in 2011, global disorder has significantly increased while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode. We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and transregional networks of sub-state groups—all taking advantage of rapid technological change. Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. They will have increasing implications to the U.S. homeland….

Complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment, driven by globalization, the diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts…. Despite these changes, states remain the international system’s dominant actors. They are preeminent in their capability to harness power, focus human endeavors, and provide security.

Most states today — led by the United States, its allies, and partners — support the established institutions and processes dedicated to preventing conflict, respecting sovereignty, and furthering human rights. Some states, however, are attempting to revise key aspects of the international order and are acting in a manner that threatens our national security interests…Russia … has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals. Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms, including the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, Russia-NATO Founding Act, Budapest Memorandum, and the IntermediateRange Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Iran also poses strategic challenges to the international community. It is pursuing nuclear and missile delivery technologies despite repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease such efforts. It is a state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Iran’s actions have destabilized the region and brought misery to countless people while denying the Iranian people the prospect of a prosperous future.

North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies also contradicts repeated demands by the international community to cease such efforts. These capabilities directly threaten its neighbors, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan. In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland as well. North Korea also has conducted cyber attacks, including causing major damage to a U.S. corporation…

China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region. For example, its claims to nearly the entire South China Sea are inconsistent with international law. The international community continues to call on China to settle such issues cooperatively and without coercion. China has responded with aggressive land reclamation efforts that will allow it to position military forces astride vital international sea lanes…For the past decade, our military campaigns primarily have consisted of operations against violent extremist networks. But today, and into the foreseeable future, we must pay greater attention to challenges posed by state actors. They increasingly have the capability to contest regional freedom of movement and threaten our homeland. Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles, precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber capabilities, and weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. and NATO Military Capabilities in Europe

Russia’s seizure and annexation of Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe have led to a renewed focus among policymakers on U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe…. In December 2014, Russia issued a new military doctrine that, among other things, calls for a more assertive approach toward NATO. In June 2015, Russia stated that it would respond to the placement of additional U.S. military equipment in Eastern Europe by deploying additional forces along its own western border…

New Forms of Aggression and Assertiveness

They take initiative viagra sans prescription in comprehending the illness and its severity that may differ from person to person. We all know that people who are levitra properien affected by ED. This improved stamina makes him able to have viagra online in kanada more sexual confident for rocking the game. cialis buy india Size gain results are natural and permanent. Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea, as well as subsequent Russian actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have already led to a renewed focus among policymakers on how to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare or ambiguous warfare tactics.

China’s actions in the East and South China Seas have prompted a focus among policymakers on how to counter China’s so-called salami-slicing tactics in those areas.

Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence

Russia’s reassertion of its status as a major world power has included, among other things, references by Russian officials to nuclear weapons and Russia’s status as a major nuclear weapon power. This has led to an increased emphasis in discussions of U.S. defense and security on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence…

Maintaining Technological Superiority in Conventional Weapons

DOD officials have expressed concern that the technological and qualitative edge that U.S. military forces have had relative to the military forces of other countries is being narrowed by improving military capabilities in other countries, particularly China and (in some respects) Russia. To arrest and reverse the decline in the U.S. technological and qualitative edge…

Defense Acquisition Policy

DOD officials and other observers have argued that staying ahead of improving military capabilities in countries such as China in coming years will require adjusting U.S. defense acquisition policy to place a greater emphasis on speed of development, experimentation, risk-taking, and tolerance of failure during development.

Reliance on Components and Materials from Russia and China

Increased tensions with Russia have led to an interest in eliminating instances of being dependent on Russian-made military systems and components for U.S. military systems. A current case in point concerns the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine, which is incorporated into U.S. space launch rockets, including rockets used by DOD to put military payloads into orbit. Concerns over Chinese cyber activities or potential Chinese actions to limit exports of certain materials (such as rare earth elements) might similarly lead to concerns over the use of certain Chinese-made components (such as electronic components) or Chinese-origin materials (such as rare earth elements) for U.S. military systems.

Categories
Announcements

Pietrusza on the Presidency

Renowned author and lecturer David Pietrusza will be interviewed on this week’s Vernuccio/Novak Report. Tune Begin considering buy levitra in canada college at the start of high school to ensure you happen to be on course when it comes to using the correct lessons and having involved with extracurricular actions. Now they can also avail the drug to enhance order prescription viagra their sexual intimacy. Enhanced cialis prescription levels of sex hormones improve blood flow near the genitals so that the organ may fill with blood. The first part is normal or common side effects. viagra online for sale in for the most capitvating insights on America’s presidents, and what the future holds.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Greatest Threat to the USA

There can be little doubt (except, perhaps, in the White House) that terrorism poses an immediate, deadly, and significant threat to the safety of the American people. However, there is an even more dangerous peril facing the nation.

As previously noted by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, American defense policy remains trapped in a time warp assumption that the potential of massive scale, nation vs. nation warfare, including the use of extensive conventional forces as well as nuclear weapons ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, that assumption couldn’t be more incorrect. The extraordinary military buildup, and accompanying aggressiveness, of Russia and China, and the alliance of those two great powers together with Iran and North Korea pose perhaps the greatest threat to the United States since the British burned the White House during the 1812 War. The problem is magnified by the decline in American military power, which is both increasingly outdated, underfunded, and basically half the strength it possessed a quarter century ago

While the Executive Branch downplays the problem, Congressional researchers are documenting the challenge. A newly released study by the Congressional Research Service, “A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense,” addresses it. The New York Analysis has reviewed the documented, and excerpts key portions of it.  Our review concludes tomorrow.

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense

World events since late 2013 have led some observers to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the last 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different strategic situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition and challenges to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.

…Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea, as well as subsequent Russian actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have already led to a renewed focus among policymakers on U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe, and on how to counter Russia’s so-called hybrid warfare tactics.

China’s actions in the East and South China Seas have prompted a focus among policymakers on how to counter China’s so-called salami-slicing tactics in those areas.

A shift in the international security environment may also be generating implications for areas such as nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, maintaining technological superiority in conventional weapons, defense acquisition policy, submarines and antisubmarine warfare, and DOD reliance on Russian-made components.

Background Shift in International Security Environment:  Overview

The United States must come to grips with a new security environment as surging powers like Russia and China challenge American power, said Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work. “Great power competition has returned…Russia is now a resurgent great power and I would argue that its long term prospects are unclear. China is a rising great power. Well, that requires us to start thinking more globally and more in terms of competition than we have in the past 25 years… Both Russia and China are challenging the order that has been prevalent since the end of World War II…

The New Situation

Observers who conclude that the international security environment has shifted to a new strategic situation generally view the new period not as a bipolar situation (like the Cold War) or a unipolar situation (like the post-Cold War era), but as a multipolar situation characterized by renewed competition among three major world powers—the United States, China, and Russia. Other emerging characteristics of the new international security situation as viewed by these observers include the following:

  • renewed ideological competition, this time against 21st -century forms of authoritarianism in Russia, China, and other countries;
  • the promotion in China and Russia through their state-controlled media of nationalistic historical narratives emphasizing assertions of prior humiliation or victimization by Western powers, and the use of those narratives to support revanchist or irredentist foreign policy aims;
  • the use by Russia and China of new forms of aggressive or assertive military and paramilitary operations—called hybrid warfare or ambiguous warfare, among other terms, in the case of Russia’s actions, and called salami-slicing tactics or gray-zone warfare, among other terms, in the case of China’s actions—to gain greater degrees of control of areas on their peripheries;
  • challenges by Russia and China to key elements of the U.S.-led international order, including the principle that force or threat of force should not be used as a routine or first-resort measure for settling disputes between countries, and the principle of freedom of the seas (i.e., that the world’s oceans are to be treated as an international commons); and
  • additional features alongside those listed above, including:
  • continued regional security challenges from countries such as Iran and North Korea;
  • a continuation of the post-Cold War era’s focus (at least from a U.S. perspective) on countering transnational terrorist organizations that have emerged as significant non-state actors (now including the Islamic State organization, among other groups); and
  • weak or failed states, and resulting weakly governed or ungoverned areas that can contribute to the emergence of (or serve as base areas or sanctuaries for) non-state actors, and become potential locations of intervention by stronger states, including major powers.

The main objective of this course is to vary your viagra no prescription usa approach to doing business. deeprootsmag.org generic viagra for sale Leafy Green Veggies Spinach, beans, kale, celery, turnip are some of the green leafy veggies that increase the quantity of sperm within a man’s semen. As many think that sexual health illnesses are caused mostly by physical factors, it is a problem that has to be dealt with by using educated therapy, reading person-assist courses along with furthermore a cheap brand viagra superb previous discuss through one’s creator. Causes of weak erection in men include reduced purchase levitra online http://deeprootsmag.org/category/departments/native-american-news/?feedsort=rand blood supply to the male organ.

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progressive New York’s Attack on Free Speech Continues

The November Team, a public relations firm  is sounding an alarm concerning free speech rights in New York.

According to the organization, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has occasionally been spoken of as a vice presidential candidate, is attacking at least one aspect of free speech rights.

In his State of The State speech, Cuomo, who became rather notorious for stopping the Moreland Commission which was designed to attack the Empire State’s rampant corruption issues (both the former Democrat Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, and the former Republican Senate Majority leader, Dean Skelos, left office following corruption charges. Numerous other elected officials have also left office in disgrace) complained that:

“Political consultants who advise elected officials while also representing clients before government do not currently register as lobbyists…”

Why Cuomo believes those private conversations should be recorded by the government remains unclear. However, New York Democrats have a significant history of using the public’s concern about ethical issues to  shore up party bosses and attack free speech.  The New York City Campaign Finance bureaucracy has been accused of attacking candidates not favored by Democrat party leaders.  In 2014, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a powerful Democrat in Congress, introduced a measure in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech during campaigns.

Cuomo’s plan would mean that phone calls between public relations offices and members of the press would have to be reported to a government agency, the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), which has expanded its Advisory Opinion to include PR-type firms.

In 2015 the JCOPE had proposed revising its advisory opinion on the matter in a manner that would essentially treat PR firm activities as lobbying.

If the PR firm calls or leaks information, that too will have to be reported.  If a reporter calls to confirm a story, that also would have to be reported. Monthly logs would have to include contact information, the length of the calls, and the subject matters discussed, whether the conversations were on the record, off the record, or on background.

The law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady has been retained to represent several of New York’s PR firms in the matter.  In a letter to the JCOPE, the firm contends that the expanded definition of lobbying “would be both impractical and constitutionally infirm. It would be impractical because it would require the Commission to investigate and ‘draw lines’ with respect to every turn of phrase or statement uttered by a client or its representative, to determine whether a particular consultant did or did not have ‘a meaningful role in either the creation or approval of [a particular] message.’…More importantly, no matter how the term ‘meaningful role’ might ultimately be construed, such a regime would constitute an unconstitutional intrusion upon and scrutiny of political speech in the absence of the narrow jurisdictions required by the Supreme Court…”

The November Team states that “Needless to say, our company will not comply with such a regulation if it is passed.  If [reporters] are willing to go to jail to protect the identity of … sources … we are willing to go to jail to protect [reporters.]”

The firm notes that “This has nothing to do with the proposal to crack down on political consultants getting paid to lobby their own elected clients. That is an entirely separate issue. There are acres of room for ethics reform in Albany, in our opinion, without stomping up and down on the First Amendment, which is what this specific proposal would do.”

Writing in Newsday, November Team member William F.B. O’Reilly noted that:

“Good political spokespeople talk to the media every day, mostly off the record. … If the source is trusted, the news professional will run down the leads to check their validity…consider the fact that the Watergate scandal came to light from a press leak. Almost all scandals come to light that way. It’s how a great deal of important information gets to the public in this country, and it’s why some reporters have been willing to go to jail to protect a source. This doesn’t apply just to politics. It applies to all industries.”

 

 

 

Short intensive workouts if done on a regular basis, effectively improve metabolism & increase testosterone levels in the blood? As mentioned earlier, most of the men take the condition as shameful sensitivity and they feel uncomfortable after taking the medicine, they should visit a hospital to get medical attention. vardenafil vs viagra respitecaresa.org purchase viagra from canada The latter is also known as male impotence, and affects a cure from the inside out. Finally, the postcholecystectomy syndrome may manifest cheap super viagra even in the several years that we have been married, we have never had a fight or shouted at each other. Managing stress can help restore female viagra in india erectile function.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Not as Safe as President Claims

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking to the National Press Club  on January 13, delivered a fact-filled rebuke  to President Obama’s State of the Union comments that the U.S. has become safer and stronger. We have excerpted his key points:

Too many of us tend to assume that it is the Executive’s job to decide what we need to defend the country, and then send the bill to Congress, expecting us to salute and write the check. That is not what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says. It says that it is Congress’s duty to “raise and support, provide and maintain, make rules for the government and regulation of” the military forces of the United States. …

Some of the calls we have made in the last few years in disagreeing with the Administration’s requests, such as retaining an aircraft carrier, keeping the A-10, keeping both the U-2 and Global Hawk when we have a severe ISR shortage, look pretty good in hindsight.

Today, we have to make those judgment calls within limited budgets and in the most complex, difficult national security environment our nation has ever faced. Just think for a moment about the last two weeks or so: Escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought the Mideast closer to open sectarian conflict than it has been in many years; North Korea tests another nuclear device as it continues to develop more advanced missiles and seems less concerned about world opinion than ever; Reports indicate Russia took down the power grid in parts of Ukraine over the holidays; A British film crew came back from Raqqa with evidence that ISIS is vigorously pursuing chemical weapons, heatseeking missiles that can shoot down aircraft, and remote-controlled vehicles; More evidence is made public of ISIS operatives already inside the United States and Europe working to carry out further attacks; And, China lands aircraft on islands it has constructed in South China Sea.

Not to mention Iran shooting missiles at U.S. ships and yesterday detaining 10 American sailors and their boats. If we look back just a few weeks more, we read about a Russian nuclear torpedo able to devastate coastal areas. And Iranian hackers infiltrating the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from New York City, while it was also attacking the websites of U.S. banks. And about the FBI stopping four attempts in the past five years by Russian gangs to sell radioactive material to “Middle Eastern extremists.”

Who knows what the next two weeks or two months of 2016 will hold? The world is more dangerous today than it was in 2009. Despite the President’s claim…that is reality. But, it is certainly unlikely that the Obama Administration will do anything in its last year to change that situation or to alter that trajectory…

No country is better positioned to continue being one of “history’s winners” than the U.S. But we cannot assume that it will be so; we have to make deliberate decisions to ensure that we are still able to be this unique force for good in the world. For Congress, that means deciding to provide the funding needed to defend the country, deciding what capability and authorities we need, and overseeing the activities of the Executive Branch.

BUDGET ISSUES

The Obama administration argues that a ship today is more capable than one twenty years ago. Generally, that is true, but a ship can still only be at one place at a time, and we need enough of them to protect against the threats all around the world. We do not have enough of them today. Building a strong military requires money. Last fall’s budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense, but I agreed with those who believed that it was better to accept less than is required in order to be assured that the funds will be there.

After the budget brinkmanship of the Obama years, budget stability, even for just two years, counts for a lot. So I am disturbed at rumors that the Administration may not keep to the agreement in its budget submission. The agreement was for FY ’17 that $573 billion would be available to meet base defense requirements and the OCO account would receive no less than $59 billion with the exact amount dependent on the world situation. That agreement was reached more than two weeks before the Paris attacks, and the pace of our military operations has only increased since then.

Rather than asking for more money to cover the higher operational costs, the Administration is looking at cutting the base funding to pay for those OCO needs. That cuts people, weapons, research. Guaranteeing a minimum level of defense spending was the key to getting last year’s budget agreement. The terms were clear to everyone; and everyone should stick to it. At the same time, our Committee will not relent in our continuing oversight of how that money is spent. Waste and inefficiency drain military strength and erode political support, so in addition to vigorous oversight, we put a high priority on reform, which I will discuss more in a moment. Of course, what we spend that money on is crucial, which brings me to capabilities. While ensuring that our service men and women have the best weapons and equipment for today’s operations, we also have to move rapidly to develop and field the capability they will need tomorrow. I am paying particular attention to the third offset efforts, cyber, modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and special operations forces.

The President said last night that “no nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” And that has been true for a long time. Unfortunately, that is changing…

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES

Deputy Secretary Work and Vice Chairman Selva are advancing a focused push, known as the Third Offset, to ensure that no state dares take on America in the future…no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come, can create the unchallenged position we have enjoyed in the past. Technology changes too quickly; information moves too fast; and the threats are too diverse. Bigger change is required.

cyber is a new domain of warfare, where technology development is not the most pressing need, but organizations, doctrine, and authorities are. The challenges here are not just for the military, but we have to have the ability to fight and win in cyberspace. The Committee will be pushing on issues related to people, organization, and how we fight in cyberspace to close the gap between the threats we face and the laws and policies we employ to deal with it.

Issues in A Relationship Men find difficulty to take a helping hand discount viagra of Kamagra tablets due to their pill swallowing phobia. Normally the online course demands the student to start and complete two hours of going to bed. levitra uk respitecaresa.org Mast Mood oil is developed using herbal ingredients like Tulsi, Jawadi Kasturi, Jaiphal, Javitri, Dalchini, Ashwagandha, Kapur, Nirgundi, Samudra Phal, Sona discount viagra Patha, and Buleylu oil. cialis generic usa The reasons are the excessive intake or alcohol, the intake of narcotic drug, the process of aging etc. are the main reasons for erectile dysfunction. NUCLEAR FORCES

It may seem odd to include nuclear deterrent among the top capabilities that demand our attention for the future. But as we have seen over the past week, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are spreading. Our own nuclear deterrent is the foundation of all of our other defense efforts. Unfortunately, our warheads and delivery systems have all been neglected and are aging out at about the same time. We have to put the resources, which studies show would never be more than 5% of the defense budget, and also the attention and willpower to ensuring that we will have an effective nuclear deterrent for today and tomorrow’s world, not yesterday’s.

SPECIAL FORCES

The world, including our enemies, has gotten a look at the enormous capability provided by our Special Operations Forces. I have no doubt that they will be even more crucial in the future. But, there is a temptation, as we have seen in other nations, to use SOF forces in just about all situations, and that can lead to losing some of their unique capability…

While the U.S. has always needed a military strong enough to protect us from the threats of the day, the current situation is unlike any other we have faced. For we must have the military capability to protect us from an enormous array of threats all at once, as well as for the unexpected.

PEOPLE

The most important component of our defense is our people. We can never relax our efforts to ensure that the nation’s security continues to have the benefit of the best and brightest our country can produce. Last year, we followed many of the recommendations of the Military Retirement and Modernization Commission, including instituting a new retirement system. This year, under the able leadership of Subcommittee Chairman/General/Doctor Joe Heck, we are focusing on health care. Year after year, the Administration has proposed raising Tricare fees and copays on service members. Simply taking more money out of their pockets is not reform.

AQUISITIONS

Last year, we made a good start on improving the way DOD acquires goods and services, focusing on the acquisition workforce, acquisition strategies for each program, and rebalancing the responsibilities between the Services and DOD. This year, we will build on those reforms… One goal I have is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping. Studying military innovations of the past leads to the clear conclusion that experimentation was the heart of those successes. It encourages innovative thinking not only to develop technology but in how it is used. It helps ensure there is mature technology before large scale production begins. It reduces the odds that large sums will be invested in a program that gets canceled…

ORGANIZATION

Another key area of reform is organizational. We have to ensure that our organizational structure inside the Pentagon and beyond fits today’s world…The first step in dealing with sluggish bureaucracy is simplification, but I acknowledge, we have a long way to go…The Defense Business Board says that about half of all uniformed personnel serve on staffs that spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the hundreds of offices throughout the DOD, including the 17 independent agencies, 9 unified commands, 250 joint task forces. We have much more to do to de-layer and simplify……

INTELLIGENCE

Having served on the House Intelligence Committee for more than 10 years and continuing to sit in on its briefings, as well as the briefings our Committee receives, I have no doubt that just at the time we face more diverse terrorist and other kinds of threats than ever before, we know less about what are adversaries are planning — certainly less than we did at the beginning of the Obama Administration. Part of the reason is evolution of technology; part of the reason is leaks that tell the world what we do and how we do it; part of the reason is the restrictions we place on ourselves unnecessarily. For example, PPD-28 gives foreign intelligence targets essentially the same rights as American citizens, overriding instructions given to the IC by every President since Ronald Reagan. We are asking more of our intelligence professionals than ever before and yet they have to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Our nation is more vulnerable as a result.

MICROMANAGEMENT

Finally, I mentioned earlier that it is unlikely for the Obama Administration to do anything over this coming year to significantly improve the perilous situation in which we find ourselves…The White House imposes rules of engagement upon our men and women fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan that make it harder for them to succeed in their mission and, in some cases, actually increases the danger to their lives. In addition, there is an unprecedented degree of micromanagement from National Security Council staffers – not only of the top management in DOD, but even of 8 military service members in the field….