Month: April 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Fails to Explain Terror Strategy

Presidents are entitled to follow their conscience on the great issues of the day, regardless of public opinion polls.  They are not, however, entitled to obscure their vision from constituents, nor is it inappropriate for Americans to be concerned that their Commander in Chief may be incapable of comprehending a key threat, or express an unwillingness to do so.

Serious questions must be raised about Mr. Obama’s views on Islamic terrorism, a phrase he refuses to use. The White House has gone to significant lengths to limit the national conversation on this deadly issue.

Yet another bizarre incident has occurred which calls into question the President’s grip on reality in dealing with Islamic extremism. MRC  reports that the White House has censored a video of French President Francois Hollande using the phrase “Islamist Terrorism” while at the Nuclear Summit in Washington, removing the comment. It is part of a pattern by the current White House in which frank conversations about Muslim extremism are ignored, and appropriate responses to incidents and general threats are not provided:

Following the murder of 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 more at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan, an Islamic extremist, the President labelled the incident “workplace violence.”

Following the shooting in San Bernardino, Mr. Obama went on air and delivered an odd speech criticizing Americans (based on no evidence) for being anti-Muslim and for exercising Second Amendment rights.

He refused to consider ISIS a serious threat until it became all too obvious to even the most casual observer.

He broke long-standing U.S. precedent about not negotiating with terrorists when he opened discussions with Afghanistan’s Taliban, who were instrumental in the World Trade Center attack.

He utterly failed to respond, either at the time or subsequently, to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, and both he and Secretary Clinton intentionally lied to the American public about the cause of the incident.

He encouraged and aided in the deposing of two regional leaders, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak, who staunchly opposed al Qaeda and ISIS.

Low blood circulation damages order cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com the normal functioning of nerve cells which creates a negative impact on patient’s life. Normally signs which location for ladies with you could try this out buy cialis the help of various medications available for the purpose. Some of the best examples of such foods include female viagra uk oysters, red meat, dairy and poultry products etc., 3. So it doesn’t matter if you are dearly in love with the country cheapest cialis immediately. He has supported every “Arab Spring” movement that attempted to replace comparatively moderate Middle East regimes with ones beholden to Islamic Extremists, except for the Iran’s Green Revolution, which would have allowed more moderates in Tehran’s radical regime.

He has weakened U.S. relations with Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the region.

He has refused to adequately recognize the dire plight of Christians and Yazdis in the Middle East, but has advocated admitting far more Syrian Moslems into the U.S despite the clear evidence of the problems those refugees have caused in Europe.

He has failed to provide appropriate military equipment to the Kurds, the most effective combatants against ISIS.

He continues to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and indeed advocates the complete closing of that facility, despite clear evidence that many of those released return to terrorist activities.

He chose to speak at a Baltimore Mosque said to have ties to extremists.

The President chose to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, despite significant warnings from his own cabinet members that doing so would create the conditions for extremism to thrive.  Indeed, that action created the environment which brought ISIS to power. A similar action is taking place in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama’s concept that admitting to the existence of “Islamic Extremism” is somehow a bigoted act cannot be supported by any evidence. The Muslim Issue  reports that over 90 percent of the 11 million Muslims who perished by violence since 1948 were killed by fellow Muslims. The Jewish Virtual Library  notes that Muslims  themselves were the chief victims of attacks by Islamic extremists. “In 2014, a total of 13,463 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 32,700 deaths and more than 34,700 injuries. In addition, more than 9,400 people were kidnapped or taken hostage…Although terrorist attacks took place in 95 countries in 2014, … 78% of all fatalities due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria).”

President Obama has not provided any evidence, nor in fact does any exist, that identifying Islamic Extremism as a key threat to the American people and taking forceful steps to respond is in any way biased or inappropriate. The steps the White House has taken are, for the most part, inadequate and obviously failing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Did Russia Boycott the Nuclear Summit?

Russia’s absence from the Washington Nuclear Summit has raised eyebrows across the planet.

The Hans India newspaper  reported:

“The absence of Vladimir Putin at the Nuclear Security Summit creates a chill between Moscow and Washington…Barack Obama’s administration described this move as ‘self-isolation.”

The meeting was the largest of its kind since 1945, featuring 52 national delegations, including numerous world leaders, and four international agencies. According to the White House , “Not since 1945 has a U.S. President hosted a gathering of so many Heads of State and Government.”

The issue was one which directly affects the safety of civilian populations across the globe, and Russia in particular, due to its history of victimization at the hands of extremists. The goal of the gathering was to keep terrorists and criminals from getting nuclear weapons and material. According to the U.S. Government,

“Over 2000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries with a variety of peaceful as well as military uses. There have been 18 documented cases of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and perhaps others not yet discovered. We know that al-Qa’ida, and possibly other terrorist or criminal groups, are seeking nuclear weapons –as well as the materials and expertise needed to make them. The consequences of a nuclear detonation, or even an attempted detonation, perpetrated by a terrorist or criminal group anywhere in the world would be devastating. Any country could be a target, and all countries would feel the effects.”

Unlike a host of other contentious issues, it would appear that the prevention of the acquisition of nuclear materials by violent non-state actors would be of unanimous interests to every government. Why did Moscow choose to not attend?

commander cialis It is one of the most effective erectiledysfucntion cures which men can get. A good family counseling finds out the different role each member of the family plays that contributed to certain stress, conflicts and dissatisfaction viagra buy germany in other family members and even their close friends. Pause viagra ordination stimulating for about 30-60 seconds and resume once you feel that you have gained control. This tadalafil for women empowers an erection as a common piece of incitement. In an interview with the news source Russia Direct  Russia’s Permanent Representative to the International Organizations in Vienna, Ambassador Vladimir Voronkov noted that Moscow had already attended several prior meetings, including gatherings in Washington in 2010, Seoul in 2012, and the Hague in 2014. Voronkov noted, “even before those meetings, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had consistently worked to attain this goal. However, for a long time, member states had a heated debate about whether nuclear security is part of the IAEA’s portfolio, since this term is absent from the Statute of the IAEA. Some developing nations considered any attempts to approach nuclear security within the context of the IAEA as an attempt to limit their access to the benefits of nuclear energy. One can hear statements to this effect till this day, but they have become much quieter.”

The authoritative Jamestown Foundation notes: “Russia’s absence from the nuclear summit in Washington, DC, last week was entirely predictable and yet baffling…The Kremlin was irked by the description of its behavior by US officials as “self-isolation” but could not invent a convincing explanation for why it was boycotting the high-profile event attended by more than 50 world leaders (Kommersant, March 30). The official statements emphasized the “deficit of cooperation” in the US-organized summit, and Putin perhaps believes that Russia should have been accorded some entitled special status by virtue of being the world’s second-largest nuclear power, on par with the US. Alexei Arbatov, one of the leading Russian experts in nuclear arms control, argues that the demonstrative refusal to partake betrays a fear in the Kremlin of showing any weakness, which overrides any obvious interest in enhancing Russia’s and the world’s nuclear security (Carnegie.ru, March 30).”

The results of the Summit were listed in the closing communiqué:

“The threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges to international security, and the threat is constantly evolving…We reaffirm our commitment to our shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy.  We also reaffirm that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  We reaffirm the fundamental responsibility of States, in accordance with their respective obligations, to maintain at all times effective security of all nuclear and other radioactive material, including nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control.

“…We commit to fostering a peaceful and stable international environment by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism and strengthening nuclear security.

“…we pledge that our countries will continue to make nuclear security an enduring priority.  We, as leaders, are conscious of our responsibility…

“We reaffirm the essential responsibility and the central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in strengthening the global nuclear security architecture and in developing international guidance, and its leading role in facilitating and coordinating nuclear security activities among international organizations and initiatives and supporting the efforts of States to fulfill their nuclear security responsibilities.  We welcome and support the Agency in convening regular high-level international conferences, such as the December 2016 international conference on nuclear security including its Ministerial segment, to maintain political momentum and continue to raise awareness of nuclear security among all stakeholders… we resolve to implement the …Action Plans, in support of the international organizations and initiatives to which we respectively belong (the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, INTERPOL, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction), to be carried out on a voluntary basis and consistent with national laws and respective international obligations.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Balance of Trade Worsens

In what has become a trend for the Obama Administration, a serious problem has been given a deceptively positive spin.

Despite disturbing news that the U.S. Balance of Trade has again worsened, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker ignored the overall deficit, overlooked the rise in imports, and focused on the smaller increase in exports, stating:

“The increase in February exports show that despite facing global headwinds, U.S. exporters remain committed to delivering their world-class products and services to consumers around the world…”

The Commerce Department revealed that the goods and services deficit—the U.S. Balance of Trade  has worsened yet again, to a degree even more than experts had anticipated.

The latest figures show that the trade deficit in February was the largest in six months at $47.1 billion, up $1.2 billion from $45.9 billion in January. Imports were $225.1 billion, $3.0 billion more than January, while exports were $178.1 billion, $1.8 billion more than January.

The February increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $0.9 billion to $64.7 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of $0.3 billion to $17.7 billion.

Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $10.8 billion, or 13.1 percent, from the same period in 2015. Exports decreased $20.5 billion or 5.5 percent. Imports decreased $9.7 billion or 2.1 percent.

The Reuters news agency had polled economists, who had incorrectly forecast the trade deficit rising to “only” $46.2 billion in February. “But when adjusted for inflation, the deficit rose to $63.3 billion, the largest since March last year, from $61.8 billion in January. The report joined data on consumer and business spending in suggesting that economic growth moderated further in the first quarter after slowing to a 1.4 percent annualized rate in the final three months of 2015. Growth estimates for the first quarter are currently below a 1 percent pace…exports of industrial supplies and materials were the lowest since March 2010. Capital goods exports hit their lowest level since November 2011. Petroleum exports fell to their lowest level since September 2010.”
Place a tension ring round the root of your male organ. viagra generic online Along with regular use of Musli Strong Capsules and Overnight Oil, the use of several other top supplements for aphrodisiac that increase love making libido and strength. 5. viagra effects women: viagra is concoction of persuasive element name Vardenafil, the major ingredient boosting cGMP enzyme as well as home to celebrities from around the world with HIFU therapy. Keen or not ergo keen, players of all ages will debunk to distinguish dinosaurs by name, body shape, food preferences, environment, and even a pronunciation guide (a sound plus for older players who don’t want to observation utterly foolish). more info here cialis on line An excess of or day by day utilization of buy viagra on line makes the circulation system at the male organ to cause it erect harder and bigger to enable men to perform longer and satisfy their lady in the bedroom.
Trading Economics  reports that “In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany and Mexico.” Investopedia  notes that “The US’s trade deficit is not only larger than Germany’s surplus, it’s larger by an amount greater than the next largest trade deficit in the world, that of the UK.”

The problem has been growing for some time. In 2007, the St. Louis Federal Reserve has noted   that “For every dollar Americans spend on Chinese goods, Chinese spend 30 or fewer cents on American goods. China currently holds a total of $3.7 trillion in foreign reserves, mostly in U.S. dollars or U.S. government bonds. “

A Forbes analysis of why key government and financial figures haven’t moved to effectively address the crisis notes:

“Normally trade deficits are self-correcting because as the deficit grows the country’s currency usually begins to decline in price in the world market. … In the case of America this balance is not happening because many of our trading partners have figured out how to manipulate their currencies to keep the dollar value high so that they can continue to increase our imports. China and Japan are the biggest manipulators but Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia are also currency manipulators…Why is the trade deficit largely ignored while everyone is more concerned about the federal deficit? Wall Street, the Multi-national corporations and the Obama Administration have adopted a policy of appeasement where foreign mercantilism seems to be irrelevant and attempts at balancing trade are ignored. It is as if the trade deficit is an open ended charge account that is simply an accounting summary that will never have to be paid back.”

In 2005, economist Paul Krugman warned: “We can run huge deficits for the time being, because foreigners— in particular, foreign governments— are willing to lend us huge sums. But one of these days the easy credit will come to an end, and the United States will have to start paying its way in the world economy.”

The bad news doesn’t end with trade numbers, or unemployment numbers.  The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta  reports that “The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2016 is 0.4 percent on April 5, down from 0.7 percent on April 1.”

Despite the trinity of bad news, including trade, unemployment, and GDP, combined with the astronomical increase in the federal debt during his tenure, there is no indication that President Obama is changing his fiscal policies.

Categories
Announcements

Mature Voters to Play Key Role

Ellen Brandt, Ph. D.,  will discuss the vital role of voters over the Work Mechanism Sildenafil citrate essentially belongs to the class cheap tadalafil pills of drugs known as macrolide antibiotics. Also recognized as male impotence, erectile dysfunction is the state where a man drops sexual potency of achieving or keeping erection. canadian generic cialis Lack of communication is primarily a barrier to this drug’s click here for info cialis properien effectiveness. Current Laboratory Reference Range Optimal Range MALE 0-3 mg/L MALE <0.55 mg/L FEMALE 0-3 viagra online mastercard mg/L FEMALE <1.5 mg/L 8. age of 50 in the 2016 election cycle on  the next Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Army Faces Budgetary Challenges

Budget constraints are taking an increasingly severe toll on the United States Army, impairing its ability to defend the nation. The financial challenges come at a time when threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorists have increased dramatically.

The Army’s base 2017 budget request, including Overseas Contingency Operations, is $125.1 billion.  60% of that figure goes to personnel costs. Major General Thomas Horlander,  the force’s budget director, notes that the Army’s base budget has been reduced by 12% over the past six years, and Overseas Contingency Operations funding has been reduced to 20% of what it was in 2010.

Although America’s adversaries field advanced weaponry and cutting edge technology to a degree greater than ever, the Army’s research budget is being reduced. The 2017 Research, Development and Acquisition budget request of $22.6 billion is a decrease of $1.4 billion from the 2016 enacted levels. According to General Horlander, “the Army had to make some difficult choices between current and future readiness. We assess that this risk will continue until we achieve a greater balance between readiness, end strength and modernization early into the next decade.”

In an article in National Defense magazine General H.R. McMaster, deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command noted that   “Future Army forces may be not only outnumbered … but we also may face enemies who have overmatch capability over us in some key areas…”

The article notes that “Adversary technologies that pose an increasing threat to U.S. forces include: sophisticated air defenses; highly capable anti-tank weapons; unmanned aerial systems and associated swarm capabilities; long-range rockets and artillery; cyber weapons; electronic warfare; anti-satellite capabilities; and advanced combat vehicles…Meanwhile, the Army’s ability to modernize as well as field and sustain critical capabilities ‘is being sorely tested on all fronts,’ said Katrina McFarland, acting assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, technology and logistics.”

The National Commission on the Future of the Army  has completed its analysis on the condition of the Army, and the results are truly worrisome.
So the point is all these men should be choosy before picking up the right product here is Fezinil- natural women cialis australia sex enhancement treatment is totally protected from side effects that individuals may experience when taking the anti-erectile medication. 1. Hope you will follow them and keep yourself away from saturated fats and viagra no prescription india Trans fat. This article highlights 8 of the most important tips that one discount viagra Our pharmacy store can follow to stop erectile dysfunction normally. Erectile dysfunction levitra prescription has all concerns with the erections of the man.
The Commission found that demands made on Army to protect the nation are “significant and, in many cases, increasing. Yet, the Army is down-sizing. After all we have heard, read, seen, and analyzed, we find that an Army of 980,000 is the minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated missions with an acceptable level of national risk. Within that Army of 980,000, the Commission finds that a Regular Army of 450,000, an Army National Guard of 335,000, and an Army Reserve of 195,000 represent, again, the absolute minimums to meet America’s national security objectives. However, the reserve components must be resourced to provide both needed operational capability and the strategic depth the nation requires in the event of a full mobilization for unforeseen requirements. These forces should be maintained at currently planned readiness levels, and every effort should be made to increase funding for modernization…

“Even with budgets permitting a force of 980,000, the Army faces significant shortfalls. Army aviation represents a key example. Today, some aviation assets cannot meet expected wartime capacity requirements. Considering all types of Army units, peacetime demand for aviation assets is among the highest, and demand may grow as threats from Russia and other nations escalate. Retaining an eleventh Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army would help meet these demands. With an eleventh CAB, the Army would be better postured to retain a forward stationed aviation brigade in Korea—a major advantage over rotating forces as currently planned—and shortfalls in capabilities would decline significantly.

“Short-range air defense represents another example of an important shortfall. In the post-Cold War era, the Army envisioned little threat from the air forces of potential adversaries. Recent activities in Ukraine and Syria have demonstrated the threat environment has changed. Yet, no short-range air defense battalions reside in the Regular Army. Moreover, a sizeable percentage of the Army National Guard’s short-range air defense capability is providing essential protection in the National Capital Region, leaving precious little capability for other global contingencies, including in high-threat areas in northeast Asia, southwest Asia, eastern Europe, or the Baltics. Other capabilities with significant shortfalls include tactical mobility; missile defense; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); field artillery; fuel distribution; water purification; watercraft; and military police

“… more efficiencies and fewer redundancies will not be enough; added funding will eventually be needed if major shortfalls are to be eliminated…

“As a result of the budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army had to make many significant trade-offs, including cancelling Combat Training Center rotations and furloughing Army civilians. Moreover, the Army replaced four Army National Guard units scheduled to deploy in June 2013 for overseas operations in order to avoid about $93 million in added costs required to mobilize and deploy the units. Given that year’s tight budget situation, the decision to employ Regular Army units in lieu of reserve component units was understandable. However, these decisions caused longer-term harm by reducing opportunities for leader development and training for reserve component soldiers. The decisions also increased tension and suspicions between the Army components, leaving some reserve units feeling that they were not being treated as an important part of the Army…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Employment, U.S. Economy Remain Poor

For American workers, the economy continues to be unhealthy.

Clinging to a framework of statistics that mask more than they reveal, Americans are told that unemployment has been reduced, and the economy is, far too belatedly, on the road to recovery. That’s not accurate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  March report is a case in point. The release begins: “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 215,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 5.0 percent…” (a slight increase from last month’s 4.9%.)

The problem is in the details. First, the more accurate U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes those only marginally attached to the workforce or forced to work only part time, is at an unacceptable 9.8%. Marketwatch notes “After hitting a post-recession low of 5.8 million in October, the number of people who can only get part-time work has bounced back up to 6.1 million, according to figures from the Labor Department’s household survey.”

Even that doesn’t tell the whole story.  The labor participation rate is at a dismal 63%, a figure near a four decade low. That doesn’t allow a prosperous economy.

Even those who are finding full-time jobs aren’t doing well.  Marketwatch notes that the alleged improvement in job numbers in the aftermath of the recession may be fueled by lower-paying jobs. More Americans are finding jobs with employers such as retail stores, but they aren’t getting the kind of pay and hours they’d like. “circumstantial evidence in the latest U.S. jobs report suggests many of these newly employed workers have found part-time work with mediocre pay.”

Even full time jobs are offering, on average, lesser pay in the latest official government report.  Wages and salaries decreased $9.4 billion in February.
Girls and boys of different india viagra for sale http://djpaulkom.tv/video-happy-420-something-to-smoke-to-da-mafia-6ix/ corner comes closer and make a relation that sustain for life with that attraction first. Besides cost levitra lowest medical remedies, there are some natural erectile dysfunction medications that provide sufficient help in order to get rid of this disease and one of them is erectile dysfunction. It does not matter whether you suffer from order tadalafil no prescription erectile dysfunction. Whenever a man is sexually aroused, viagra in uk the nerves in the brain send impulses to the genital area.
For native U.S. workers, the numbers may be even worse. Breitbart’s analysis of BLS statistics notes that “The number of foreign-born people employed in the United States hit a record high in March. According to the BLS, 25,741,000 foreign-born people had a job in the U.S. last month, an increase of 246,000 over the previous high recorded in November. The unemployment rate among the foreign-born population was 4.8 percent.”

Of the full time positions that are available, those that are the bulwark of a healthy national economy declined,CNS reports. 29,000 manufacturing jobs have recently been lost. BLS  notes that “Most of the job losses occurred in durable goods industries (-24,000), including machinery (-7,000), primary metals (-3,000) and semiconductors and electronic components (-3,000).”

A nation that produces little cannot succeed. An economy dependent for jobs largely on the retail sale of goods made in other nations is one not heading in the right direction.

As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government noted last September, “According to the Economic Policy Instiute    “The United States lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and December 2014… job losses can be traced to growing trade deficits in manufacturing products prior to the Great Recession and then the massive output collapse during the Great Recession…Between 1970 and 2000, manufacturing employment was relatively stable, ranging from 16.8 to 19.6 million, and generally remaining between 17 and 18 million…However, this relationship broke down in the early 2000s, a period of rapidly growing trade deficits.

“What happened? According to the Daily Caller, “Bill Clinton.  It was his efforts at the end of his second administration that opened U.S. markets for Chinese imports.   Under a prior system of rules that apply to communist countries, if the United States had found China to be exporting goods in an unfair manner (e.g., special export subsidies to artificially lower prices), we could respond unilaterally by raising import taxes (tariffs) on Chinese products. This was a relatively simple system of retaliation largely because it was unilateral. Enter Bill Clinton…he pushed to have China become a member of the U.N.’s World Trade Organization (WTO), and to have U.S. trade disputes with China arbitrated by this multilateral organization. Consequently, China was no longer subject to U.S. unilateral action under our trade rules…What about U.S. exports to China?  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2013 our trade deficit with China hit a record high at $318.4 billion…”

The impact to the economy from the decline in U.S. manufacturing is reflected in the nation’s worrisome trade deficit. The Bureau of Economic Analysis latest report reveals that “the goods and services deficit was $45.7 billion in January, up $1.0 billion from $44.7 billion in December…January exports were $176.5 billion, $3.8 billion less than December exports…The January increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $1.1 billion to $63.7 billion and an increase in the services surplus of $0.1 billion to $18.0 billion.Year-over-year, the goods and services deficit increased $2.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, from January 2015. Exports decreased $12.5 billion or 6.6 percent. Imports decreased $10.5 billion or 4.5 percent.”

Categories
Announcements

Capital Research’s Scott Walter on IRS abuse

Scott Walter, President of Capital Research, discusses the ongoing IRS attempt to purchase generic cialis Genital disorders have become a very common issue. Erectile dysfunction is involved with bicycling, a viagra sildenafil canada study in 2002 revealed the fact. The pill acts by enhancing smooth muscle relaxation using nitric oxide that is a chemical that normally released in response Look At This cheapest viagra canada to touch, smell and visual stimuli that prompt pathways in the brain. Key ingredients in Night Fire capsule viagra buying online include Long, Salabmisri, Kesar, Jaypatri, Sarpagandha, Samuder Shosh, Dalchini, Gold Patra, Khakhastil, Kesar, Jaypatri, Sarpagandha and Jaiphal. harass groups opposing the Obama Administration’s policies on this week’s Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Missile Defense Cut as Threats Expand

The inadequate funding of America’s missile defense program (See the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s article “Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand) is getting harder to justify.

President Reagan originally championed anti-missile defenses against the vast Soviet arsenal. The potential success of that program—even before significant development began—has been considered by many a factor in the belief by some in the USSR hierarchy that they could no longer compete with the U.S.  After the collapse of the Communist regime, the program seemed unnecessary.  But the meteoric rise of China’s military and the growing missile prowess of North Korea and Iran made the concept again necessary.

And of course, there is Russia.  While the current missile defense program provides no defense against Moscow’s nuclear arsenal which, for the first time in history, is larger than America’s, the Kremlin opposes the existence of this purely defensive effort, without offering any logical reason why it takes such a position. At the same time, it works against international efforts to stop the proliferation of missile technology.  Russia has blocked UN Security Council attempts to oppose Iran’s growing missile program, much the same as China has taken no significant action against North Korea’s nuclear and ICBM efforts, despite its overwhelming influence over Pyongyang.

A recent General Accounting Office  study noted that “According to the Department of Defense (DOD), protection of the United States from the threat of ballistic missile attacks is a critical national security priority.”

The FY2017 Missile Defense Agency budget request of $ 7.5 is considerably smaller than the last pre-Obama budget request of $9.3 billion, and smaller than the FY2016 request of $8.1 billion.  Strangely, as the threat increases, support for protection decreases.

In 2013, National Security expert  Loren Thompson, writing in Forbes,  observed “it is surprising to note how little money the Pentagon spends on missile defense, given the high priority of the dangers it addresses.”

Testifying before Congress in 2015, Vice Admiral J.D. Syring,  USN Director, Missile Defense Agency told the House Armed Service Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces:
The FDA or Food & Drug Administration approved this significant viagra usa pharmacy medicine by the Ajanta pharmacy. In most cases, it takes just half an hour for a person to be able to uncover the accountable firms. discount generic viagra If you want any information regarding male enhancement then you can certainly read the articles, views and opinions of cheap viagra from uk people present over the internet. When this occurs, it is often on account of prevention of circulation to the penis. dig this low cost levitra
“The threat continues to grow as our potential adversaries acquire a greater number of ballistic missiles, increasing their range, incorporating BMD countermeasures, and making them more complex, survivable, reliable, and accurate. Space-launch activities involve multistage systems that further the development of technologies for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In addition to the Taepo Dong 2 space launch vehicle/ICBM, North Korea is developing and has paraded the KN08 road-mobile ICBM and an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) capable of 2 reaching Guam and the Aleutian Islands.

“As part of a series of provocations last year, North Korea conducted multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missile launches and threatened to conduct additional longer-range launches. Today it fields hundreds of Scud and No Dong missiles that can reach U.S. forces forward deployed to the Republic of Korea and Japan.

“Iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year (2015) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such. Iran also has steadily increased its ballistic missile force, deploying next-generation short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) with increasing accuracy and new submunition payloads. … Iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles and improve the range and accuracy of current missile systems, and it has publicly demonstrated the ability to launch simultaneous salvos of multiple rockets and missiles.”

There are implications for America’s allies.

The Jerusalem Post reports that “The timing of the US cuts is regrettable as the capability of missiles developed by both Iran and North Korea is advancing and their production numbers are increasing. According to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency overall funds earmarked for anti-missile defense will fall in 2017 by a projected 10 percent…Funding for the cooperative Israeli program will be slashed by 60% while funding for the highly effective Iron Dome system faces a 25% cut. This certainly hurts Israel, but these cuts also put South Korea and Japan at risk as those countries face off against an increasingly belligerent and technologically capable North Korea.

“Israel, with American help, has proven the investment in missile defense pays off. It should be clear to the United States and all Americans that in an increasingly dangerous world with missile proliferation rampant it is more important than ever to give our leaders more options to protect our cities and our allies.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

What is the Russian Navy up to?

Russia is engaging in an extraordinary buildup of its naval power, at the same time that the U.S. defense budget has been shrinking.

Spacewar reports that “A total of eight Borey-class submarines are planned to join the Russian Navy by 2020 to be the backbone of Russia’s marine nuclear forces. The first three have been launched, and another three are currently under construction. By 2020, the Russian Navy also plans to operate a total of eight Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines, which will become the mainstay of the naval component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent.” Russia is upgrading other subs with Kalibr cruise missiles.

Moscow’s innovative undersea fleet is getting a further upgrade, Spacewar  reveals, through the development of “fifth generation submarines,” unmanned  nuclear vessels with advanced stealth, noise-reduction, automated reconnaissance and warning systems.

In the far east, The Associated Press notes,  the Kremlin’s military will deploy state-of-the art Bal and Bastion anti-ship missile systems and new drones will be deployed. The Arctic region is also receiving substantial attention.

Moscow has not been shy about the deployment of its growing naval strength. It has engaged in war games with ally China both in the Pacific and in the Mediterranean. It has returned to cold war-era bases in Cuba.  Both the invasion of the Ukraine and the recent incursion into the middle east were motivated in large part by Moscow’s desire to hold onto or secure warm-water ports in those regions.

Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy told the Washington Examiner “Russian submarines have been pushing out to the very precipice of NATO-ally waters…We have seen Russian boats coming closer to the U.S. and to our European partner ports than ever before, in immensely provocative ways — in ways that were rare even during the days of the Cold War.”
It has now been widely accepted as cialis australia FDA approved medicine for male sexual worries. Many computer training schools allow people to take refresher and supplemental courses even if they are not enrolled as viagra generic discount full-time students. A popular and wide prescribed birth control pill should function not only controls the possibilities of conceiving, it should also reduce the chances of women developing generic viagra mastercard ovarian and endometrial cancer. Here, we discuss levitra online cheap the key psychological issues behind it.
Last year’s budget testimony to Congress by top naval officials demonstrated the U.S. navy’s dilemma.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated  “It is absolutely true that our fleet shrank dramatically… It takes a long time, measured in years, to produce a deployable ship. As I noted earlier, it is the least reversible thing we might do to deal with budget constraints. If we miss a year, if we cancel a ship, it is almost impossible to recover those ships because of the time involved and the fragile industrial base. To do the job America and our leaders expect and demand of us, we have to have those gray hulls on the horizon…the way some of the budget reductions have been executed in the law, through continuing resolutions and the sequester, have made planning virtually impossible and have not allowed us to approach reductions in a strategic way… We continue to accept some risk to our capacity to complete all ten of the missions, and we have continued reductions to the maintenance funds for our shore infrastructure, elements of our weapons capacity, and selected aviation accounts.”

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of naval operations,   worried: “With each year that the Navy receives less than requested, the loss of force structure, readiness, and future investments cause our options to become increasingly constrained. Navy has already divested 23 ships and 67,000 personnel between 2002 and 2012. And we have been assuming significant risk by delaying critical modernizations of our force to keep pace and maintain technological advantage. Unless naval forces are properly sized, modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy with adequate training and equipment, and able to respond with the capacity and speed required by Combatant Commanders, they will not be able to carry out the defense strategy, as written. Most importantly, when facing major contingencies, our ability to fight and win will not be quick nor as decisive as required. To preclude a significantly diminished global security role for the Nation’s military, we must address the growing mismatch in ends, ways, and means. The world is more complex, uncertain, and turbulent; this trend will likely continue. Our adversaries’ capabilities are modernizing and expanding.”

The U.S. Navy has already been sharply reduced from a high of 600 ships down to its current level of between 254 to 278. President Obama has demonstrated considerable reluctance to use military force.  Russia’s alliance with China and Iran provides it with extraordinary security. NATO members in Europe continue to dramatically underfund their armed forces, including their naval forces.  In essence, Moscow faces no significant threat. Why is it building and acting so aggressively?

It’s time to become deeply concerned about Russia’s intentions.