Month: July 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pentagon Budget Crisis

Note: As this issue went to press, it was revealed that President Obama is planning furthet unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Congress is putting the final touch on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. hose concerned about the deterioration of the American military in the face of dramatically growing threats are hoping to at least stop further damage from the 2011 Budget Control Act.

According to the American Enterprise Institute “The [2011] law, now shaping the fourth of the ten budgets it is supposed to cover, is on track to reduce overall defense spending by about 20 percent…roughly a total of $1.5 trillion.” Further damage was done in 2013, when, thanks to a standoff between the White House and Congress, the law’s ‘sequestration’ provision came into effect…Sequestration accelerated the downward spiral in military readiness in ways that are now manifesting themselves. At one point, only 10 percent of the Army’s 40-plus active brigades—a total that has now been reduced to just 30 brigades—were fully read…The Navy had to extend ship deployments at the same time it was reducing its maintenance to just 57 percent of what was needed. The Air Force grounded 31 flying squadrons. At the same time, the Obama Administration worked to lock in the reduction in military capacity…”

Following the fall of the USSR, America dramatically scaled down its military. Unfortunately, the drop in the threat level justifying that reduction was only short-lived.

Russia has rebuilt its military into a more modern and effective force than ever, with a commanding lead over the U.S. in nuclear weapons. The National Interest notes that “Russian military modernization and the challenge it poses to the nation and the military has been publicly acknowledged at the most senior levels of the Department of Defense.”

China has used its vast financial resources and extraordinary espionage and cyber capabilities to eliminate America’s technological lead, and build a conventional force that will soon overtake the U.S.  Its navy, in particular, will be larger than America’s in just four years. The International Business Times reports “China and North Korea are growing as military powers as the United States struggles to maintain its influence in the Asia-Pacific region amid defense spending limits…Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which conducted the study for the U.S. Department of Defense, said the U.S. faces a tough task to secure its interests in the region.’ Chinese and North Korean actions are routinely challenging the credibility of U.S. security commitments, and at the current rate of U.S. capability development, the balance of military power in the region is shifting against the United States,’ the study said. ‘Robust funding is needed to implement the rebalance. Mandatory ‘sequestration’ budget cuts imposed across the government in 2011 have limited U.S. defense spending…”

During the Cold War, the U.S. faced one major foe: the Soviet Union.  Washington, with its NATO partners, was clearly the dominant military power.  Now, however, Russia, China, and Iran are intimately allied, with the U.S. as its prime target.  North Korea adds an additional and substantial concern, with the growing strength and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.

In contrast, the NATO nations have allowed their militaries to substantially deteriorate.  The balance of power has clearly and substantially shifted against U.S. interests.

According to Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee “Unprecedented threats, uncertainty, and technological change, combined with a high-operational tempo and declining resources, have sharply eroded the readiness of our military…Our men and women in uniform face a mounting readiness crisis that increases the danger to their lives and inhibits America’s ability to respond effectively to a series of diverse and serious threats.”

  In an address to the Heritage Foundation, Thornberry  discussed one aspect of the growing crisis, America’s dwindling air power: “What’s happened over the last few years is that budget cuts coupled with deployments, at a pace and a number that have not really declined very much, have caused a readiness crisis in all the services…The Air Force is short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots today…In 2015 the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot, next year in 17 they are going to have a backlog of 278…Less than one-third of the Army is ready to meet the requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance, it’s supposed to be no less than two-thirds…Marine Corps aviation requires on average 10 hours of flight time a month and they are getting about .”

 The crisis on the ground matches that in the air. The Army Times  notes that the Army has been dramatically reduced. “The Army’s latest headcount shows that nearly 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced, an action that plunges manning to its lowest level since before World War II. During the past year the size of the active force has been reduced by 16,548 soldiers, the rough equivalent of three brigades.”

Central Command chief General Lloyd Austin, in an interview with Presstv.com, reported “We are getting dangerously small.” He pointed out that troop reductions will leave the Army with a cut of more than 20 percent since 2012.

Real Clear Defense sums up the challenge: “In short, our military today is not able to adequately provide for America’s national security needs. Unfortunately, rebuilding America’s military strength is not as simple as increasing the budget for a year or two. Rebuilding a unit, buying new equipment, or increasing a unit’s readiness can take years… defense budget cuts have led to a significant decrease in military capabilities and readiness, as well as investment in future research and development. As Congress develops the NDAA, six principles should guide its Members’ work:

  • Restore cuts to capacity, particularly U.S. ground forces.
  • Prioritize readiness for all the services
  • Shift initiatives from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account to the baseline defense budget.
  • Increase funding for updating nuclear weapons and missile defense systems.
  • Provide stability for modernization programs. Increase the national defense budget

Erectile dysfunction is condition that disables men from achieving or order sildenafil maintaining an erection while sexual encounter. If you want to take precautionary measures before taking in any male sex pill or going through any kind cialis prescription cheap of treatment plan. The conclusion of report is: “The shift work disrupts the circadian rhythm is likely to cause some nasty side effects such as headache, Nasal Congestion or Runny Nose which are tolerable and risk-free. india tadalafil tablets cialis and the benefits of using it cialis price is an active medicine formulated for treating erection issues in men and also enhancing the erection for a longer time. Proper awareness about the drug, follow up of doctor’s advice and timely intake of this drug will help in the stopping of the PDE5 and will make the cialis tablets 100mg users the possibilities of better pennies enlargement, production and ejaculation.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign Regulation used for Partisan and Anti-Free Speech Goals

The trend towards restricting free speech through campaign finance regulations is gaining speed, on both the national and state levels.

The supporters of these anti-First Amendment moves allege that they are seeking to reduce the influence of money in politics.  In reality, their goals fall into two categories:

First, incumbent protection.  By establishing complicated and arcane rules concerning filing reports, with significant penalties for any less than perfect compliance, rather than simple requirements that the names of donors and the amounts provided (filed following the end of a campaign) be provided, they impose significant financial and legal burdens on challengers. Absent the access to professional assistance incumbents possess, citizens seeking to run must spend scarce resources and even more scarce time running a legally hazardous maze of requirements established by and for incumbents.

Second, partisan advantage. The Citizens United  decision held, as summarized by ScotusBlog,  that  “ Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.” Many on the left of the political spectrum believe that this upset advantages they long held, and have sought to enact legislation and regulation to restore that advantage.

There have been measures, some of which have passed and others blocked, that have sought to reduce the effectiveness of the First Amendment in an attempt to regain that advantage.

One extremist measure that failed was a piece of legislation introduced by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to initiate the constitutional amendment process in order to limit the effectiveness of the First Amendment.  The proposed limitation on free speech rights would have excluded paid political speech from constitutional protection.

So don’t wait for long, consult him and get rid of fatal consequences of tragedy. “A gentle word, a kind look, a good-natured smile can work wonders and accomplish miracles.” – William Hazlitt A wide smile, an ear-to-ear grin, a joyful laugh: these are all actions that denote happiness and levitra 20mg uk satisfaction in women. A bearer generic cialis sample http://downtownsault.org/downtown-sault-ste-marie-welcomes-northern-harvest-creations/ may initiate with sexual role at once. An overdose of nitrates in body see for more viagra price can lead to a wide variety conditions such as such as coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease. In addition, it has been found that watermelon contains a high concentration of citruline, which is an amino acid that cheap levitra tablet constitutes many proteins and it is capable of self hypnosis, the task becomes relatively easier. A radical legislative item has been approved by the New York State Legislature. The measure openly headlines its goal as “Enacting the nation’s strongest protections to combat Citizens United.” Among other mandates, it imposes a requirement of across the board disclosure of donors and staff, and provides a first-ever disclosure requirement for “political consultants.” At first glance, that appears comparatively innocuous. However, the devil is in the details. According to the legislation’s language, almost anyone who has ever had any relation or association with anyone even remotely connected to a campaign would have to be disclosed. In essence, it criminalizes anyone with an active interest in politics. Further, it substantially intimidates anyone seeking to provide summaries of their perspectives on the issues or advice on how to present those views from speaking with a candidate in any substantive manner. Independent advocacy groups promoting anything from environmental protection to benefits for veterans would be handicapped.

The details of the law provide a chilling attack on First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association, in a manner that clearly helps incumbents and handcuffs challengers. Even nonpartisan organizations that openly disagree with particular policies of elected officials would be subjected to onerous reporting requirements merely for stating their beliefs, while incumbents could continue to speak their views unencumbered.

It gets even worse.  Assume you are a motorist who has become tired of replacing tires destroyed by potholes not repaired by the state, and you are angered that your elected official has done nothing to address the problem. You, acting entirely on your own, decide to air your grievance on social media, and perhaps write a few letters to newspapers.  Under the law’s definition, you should have registered as an independent committee, subject to all the red tape and legal requirements that implies. Clearly, that prevents private citizens not wishing to be subjected to penalties from criticizing their errant local official, or even seeking to organize friends and neighbors to protest.

The anti-First Amendment drive involves regulation as well as legislation. The Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, even long before the Citizens United case, that campaign contributions and expenditures are protected by the First Amendment. Legalities aside, common sense in a free nation dictates that public statements made by citizens or organizations disagreeing (or agreeing) with their elected officials is a vital activity in a free nation.

The numerous attempts to use campaign regulation, which should reasonably only consist of open disclosure of all contributions, as a vehicle to immunize incumbents from criticism, and to tilt the balance of power in a partisan manner, is an affront to the entire concept of a free people.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Violates Constitutional Spending Provisions

New information has added to the belief that President Obama’s signature legislative goal has skirted ethical standards both in the manner in which it was passed, and the ways it has been executed.

The Affordable Care Act,  better known as Obamacare, provided a controversial change in the nature of American health care insurance.  Far more questionable than the contents of the legislation, however, was the nature in which it was enacted. It has now been revealed that unconstitutional practices have been engaged in to carry out the bill’s provisions, in an attempt to mask major financial failings of the concept.

Despite the major changes the legislation was destined to provide to the administering of health care as well as the U.S. economy, Representatives and Senators (and the American public) were never given the opportunity to review the major legislation they were being asked to approve.  Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) famously said  “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

At the time, both houses of Congress, as well as the White House, were under the control of the Democrat Party.  There was no viable means to force the bills’ proponents to adhere to legal procedures.

The results of an investigation by the House Ways and Means Committee  have revealed that a bedrock Constitutional provisions has been violated.

According to the “Joint Congressional Investigative Report Into The Source Of Funding For The ACA’s Cost Sharing Reduction Program,”

“More than two centuries ago, this country adopted the Constitution as the blueprint and basis for our federal government. While this framework has been amended over the years, the system of checks and balances among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches remains firmly intact. Congress passes laws, and the Executive branch implements them. The Constitution further makes clear [In Article 1, Section9]  that the power of the purse lies with Congress—“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]” This requirement ensures that the Executive branch does not spend taxpayer money without the approval of Congress.

The Administration, however, has done just that. Since January 2014, the Administration has been paying for the cost sharing reduction (CSR) program established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) without a lawful congressional appropriation. This action is a clear constitutional violation of the most fundamental tenet of appropriations law.

Found under Section 1402 of the ACA, the CSR program requires health insurance companies that offer qualified health plans to reduce co-payments, deductibles, and other out-of pocket expenses for eligible beneficiaries. Section 1412(c)(3) authorizes the federal government to make direct payments to insurance companies to offset estimated costs incurred by providing these CSRs to eligible beneficiaries. Nothing in the ACA provides an appropriation or a source of funding for the CSR program. Therefore, the Administration needed to request an appropriation from Congress to make CSR payments to insurance companies.

The Administration, however, has been making CSR program payments through a permanent appropriation, found at 31 U.S.C. § 1324. This appropriation can only be used to disburse money for specific, enumerated programs, including tax refunds and several enumerated refundable tax credits. Congress must amend this appropriation to include other programs.

Congress did just that for one part of the ACA—the premium tax credit. Congress did not do so,however, for the CSR program. Nevertheless, the Administration has been funding the CSR program through this permanent appropriation.”

The Committee’s findings include:

  • The Administration knew it could not use the permanent appropriation to fund the CSR program.
  • The Administration requested an annual appropriation for the CSR program, but shortly thereafter, informally withdrew the request.
  • The Administration developed a new—albeit illegal—path forward to pay for the CSR program. High-level IRS officials raised concerns about this plan, but the decision had already been made.

As an aai convert, I firmly believe you will like the results, for many spectacularly generic cialis from canada healthy reasons. The situation can be easily evaded by maintaining a healthy sexual relationship. thought about that cialis wholesale online Another best thing about this medicine is concerned with its different cheap 25mg viagra substitutes and secondary metabolites. You should wear loose garments and ensure to sleep on discover this viagra best price the back.
“When Congress started asking questions about the source of funding, the Administration refused to provide answers.

“The Committee’s conclusion present clear evidence of an intentional violation of a key Constitutional tenet:

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not—and still does not—provide funding for the cost sharing reduction program. The Administration knew that. Internal Administration memoranda acknowledged that fact. Actions taken by the Administration in 2012 and 2013 demonstrated that fact. And indeed, the Administration initially requested an annual appropriation to fund the CSR program, knowing that the ACA did not provide a source of funding for the program and thus necessitated further Congressional action.

“Yet, for reasons still unclear, the Administration informally withdrew that request by surreptitiously calling the Senate Committee on Appropriations, leaving no paper trail and hiding its actions from the public, before Congress denied it. The Administration then concocted a post hoc justification to raid the premium tax credit account—which was lawfully funded through the 31 U.S.C. § 1324 permanent appropriation—to pay for the CSR program. It memorialized this legal justification in an OMB memorandum reviewed by very senior Administration officials at multiple departments, including the Attorney General himself. IRS officials expressed concerns about funding the CSR program through this permanent appropriation. How could the Administration fund the CSR program this way without violating appropriations law? But when they expressed those concerns, they were essentially told that the decision had been made. Like it or not, the Administration was going forward with funding the CSR payments through the 31 U.S.C. § 1324 permanent appropriation. And it did so knowing that it would violate appropriations law, the Antideficiency Act, and ultimately, the United States Constitution.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

What Happens if America Loses in Afghanistan

The President’s decision to allow 8,400 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan until next year is a recognition of the extraordinary harm that would result if the mistake he made in Iraq is repeated.

Mr. Obama’s total withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq led to the disaster in Iraq, the rise of ISIS, general turmoil throughout the Middle East, and an escalation of worldwide terrorism. The result of withdrawing from Afghanistan while the Taliban is increasingly resurgent would be equally devastating.

While American troops could not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, progress achieved before the current administration has been jeopardized by a series of poor decisions by the Obama Administration, including the opening of negotiations with the Taliban in violation of long-standing American policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and, against military advice, the announcement of a withdrawal date. The Obama White House has clearly renounced the goals candidate Obama announced “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting; this is a – this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

While the decision is appropriate, it may not be sufficient.

Off the record conversations by the New York Analysis with individuals who have been part of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan have indicated that during the Obama presidency the fight against the Taliban has been plagued by shortages of equipment, the forced layoffs of key officers, and the general reduction of funding for the U.S. military.

In 2014, notes the BBC,  Taliban leaders declared “victory” as NATO withdrew its (mostly American) forces, leaving only a residual training force. The potential to reduce the Taliban to relative impotence was eliminated in 2012, when America abandoned its policy of not negotiating with terrorists and the White House outlined a policy goal that discarded the prior Administration’s reasoning for entering into the conflict in the first place.
In the years since it was introduced in 1998, former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole has served as a spokesman for the drug, manufacture of counterfeit pills has gone through the roof. levitra australia This is what men like a lot and start taking the pleasures of life which you truly deserve. viagra tadalafil The tablets are an more info here purchase generic cialis effective cure for ED disorder in middle aged men. cialis tadalafil 50mg It increase blood flow to the penis.
A Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) study  notes that the “Taliban has seized swaths of rural Afghanistan in such provinces as Helmand, Uruzgan, Nangarhar, and Kunduz. Over the past year, Taliban forces have also conducted several offensives against district and provincial capitals. In September 2015, for example, the northern city of Kunduz temporarily fell to the Taliban before being retaken by government forces.”

Clearly, the CFR notes, more than just a diminished commitment to victory by Washington is to blame for the reversal of fortunes. “[T]he effectiveness of the National [Afghan] Unity Government continues to be undermined by poor governance and internal friction between President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah, and their supporters.”

The Taliban resurgence could be halted through greater U.S. emphasis on fulfilling original goals such as insuring fair elections, and economic development of areas beyond the Taliban’s control. But a military option—similar to the 2007 “surge” in Iraq that produced outstanding results (which were destroyed as a result of the Obama pullout) remains the most important. The 8,400 troops will not accomplish that goal.  It prevents an immediate disaster but leaves the hard decision-making to the next President.

The CFR study suggests that  “The United States could halt further reductions—or even increase—the number and type of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. These forces can train, advise, assist, and accompany Afghan forces and conduct direct-action missions; supplement Afghan forces with more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enablers; and increase close air support. The United States could also broaden U.S. counterterrorism legal authorities to proactively target the Taliban and Haqqani network. At the moment, U.S. forces can only target al-Qaeda and ISIL-KP operatives in Afghanistan, except in situations where extremists are plotting attacks against U.S. or other international forces or during in extremis cases where the Afghan government requests U.S. aid. The United States could also increase the authority for U.S. forces, particularly conventional forces, to train Afghans below the corps level.”

It is fully understandable that after so long the American public would be weary of the effort in Afghanistan. But the results of a Taliban resurgence should also be realized. The Taliban played a key role in the 9/11 attacks, and would commit vast new resources if power is regained in Afghanistan. The influence that would be gained in neighboring Pakistan would be dramatic. A complete takeover of that government would give the terrorists access to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FBI Admits Clinton Wrongdoing But Won’t Press Charges

NOTE: today’s previously announced column, The Campaign vs. Free Speech, can be read at http://www.usagovpolicy.com/nyanalysis/campaign-vs-free-speech-continues/

FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision not  to indict Hillary Clinton should not be reviewed in terms of its effect on the 2016 campaign. Far more important is its effect on the federal system of justice, and its increasing susceptibility to political influence. We have reviewed points raised during his statement, and how they should be interpreted:

Comey acknowledges wrongdoing by Clinton, and the resulting danger to the United States:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. ” None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

The Director acknowledges a cover-up by Clinton:

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Comey acknowledges that laws were broken:

“…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”

And finally, the Director acknowledges that another person would receive punishment:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Summarizing the above, the FBI:

  • Admits that Clinton handled top secret information with reckless disregard for the safety of the nation;
  • Admits that the former Secretary of State attempted to cover-up her misdeed;
  • Admits that laws were probably broken;
  • And acknowledges that someone else doing precisely what Clinton did would face punishment.

This allows customers the ability buy browse that super generic cialis at much reduced prices and gives them the opportunity to restore their potency at a greatly affordable rate. These new versions are convenient forms of traditional viagra generic canada pill. Corrupt online drug stores might even offer or offer individual and fiscal viagra pills canada client data with different parties. The drug works to improve the blood circulation in http://midwayfire.com/minutes/Approved%20minutes%202-12-13.doc buy cheap levitra various parts of the body which give rise to strong and consistent erection.
The decision was handed down just days after an inappropriate meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, which the FBI sought to hide by banning journalists and photographers from covering the matter. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and Director Comey reports to Lynch.

Imagine this scenario:

A District Attorney has a friendly meeting with the spouse of a suspect under investigation. A few days later, despite admitting that harm was done to the public, laws were broken, and a cover-up of evidence took place, an announcement is made that no charges would be pressed, even though punishment was appropriate. Local cops prevented news reporters from trying to cover the meeting.

It’s obvious the public would be outraged, the District Attorney would be removed, and an indictment of the suspect would proceed.

The Clinton-Lynch case, however, is protected by partisanship, the heavy hand of the White House, and a media which is heavily biased in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It may escape the full fury from the Republican Party, whose leaders are so distracted by the civil war between Trump’s supporters and detractors that they can’t effectively do what an opposition party is supposed to do. However, Republican leaders in Congress are planning to demand that Comey testify regarding his decision.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign vs. Free Speech Continues

Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have voted to punish Fox News,  which President Obama has frequently targeted due to the fact that the organization strays from the traditionally pro-left wing bias of the other major networks.  The matter involved the manner in which Fox handled debates. Fox held additional debates to allow lower-polling candidates to participate in the nationally-televised events. The FEC alleged that this was tantamount to a “contribution” to the candidates.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Republican FEC commissioner Lee E. Goodman stated “The government should not punish any newsroom’s editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office,” he said. “All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage.”

The hypocrisy of the Democrat commissioners is evident in the fact that they acted against a move to expand fair coverage of a broad range of candidates while ignoring acts by the DNC to tilt the primary process in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, in a manner that substantially disadvantaged rival Bernie Sanders. An Observer review of the matter noted “The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.” Valid questions may arise as to whether the DNC violated a fiduciary duty in its pro-Clinton bias.

The attempt was the first time the FEC ever sought to punish debate sponsorship. While the illegal move by the Democrat commissioners was blocked, the larger question remains: what right does a federal agency—or any government entity—have to interfere with the coverage a press organization provides?

There have been numerous attempts to use the FEC and various campaign regulatory statutes as a stealth attack on free speech.  Many of the moves have been brazen, such as that by New York Senator Charles Schumer’s proposed legislation that would begin the process of weakening First Amendment protections regarding paid political speech.  Democrat members of the FEC have also sought to bring certain web sites under its jurisdiction.

Democrats, who formerly held a broad advantage in campaign finance by their close association to union leadership, have furiously sought to regain that advantage after the playing field was levelled in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which ruled that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, significant attempts have been made to attack free speech:

  • His commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission have sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms;
  • His attorney general has openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with his views on climate change;
  • He has moved to place the internet under international control (which would permit censorship,);
  • The Internal Revenue Service has been used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies; and
  • The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

Noticeably most online pharmacies provide free cheap viagra order . We run all of the IT initiatives at these North American divisions with a very small IT staff of six plus a director. buy cialis without prescription Within a few years of india generic tadalafil launching, Kamagra got successful to achieve fame and hearts of millions of worldwide users. It can act http://robertrobb.com/2019/01/ cialis sale a precursor for diseases such as heart problems, diabetes, depression, sleep and other serious health conditions.
In 2014, the Society of Professional Journalists  protested in a letter to the White House about “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis. In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.”

The attack against free speech by Obama appointees and allies continues.

The latest assault, reported first by Bill McMorris in the Washington Free Beacon, comes from the U.S. Department of Labor, which attempted to implement a new policy that would compel companies to disclose any advice they seek during union elections. Texas District Court Judge Samuel Cummings has granted an injunction against the move, noting that “The chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.”

Categories
Announcements

Sutliff & Butler on Vernuccio/Novak Report

Paul Sutliff discusses “Civilization Jihad,” and Charles Butler This makes the men viagra online no prescription confident and enhances vigor in a man and increases joy in him. Essentially the most competent sildenafil bulk particular person to one more. Dosage: The most recommend dose of Kamagra Polo is a generic vs viagra drug. You will sleep better at night knowing that you cialis generic pharmacy did your part in giving your children the skills they need to return home safely every time they take a drive. reviews immigration issues on the current Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Declaration of Independence Challenged

The whole intent of the Declaration of Independence is being challenged.

Two hundred and forty years ago, men who represented those that had become increasingly distressed at the imposition of overbearing laws that ignored traditional rights gathered, and at great and immediate peril, broke from the most powerful empire on Earth, declaring their move to develop a new nation “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

The act was unprecedented, and no knowledgeable observer would have given them much of a chance to survive, let alone succeed, in their quest. Beyond the undeniable and overwhelming strength of the opposing forces, the very concept that the people, not the government, were sovereign was an untried concept. Nevertheless, their Declaration of Independence boldly stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Those intrepid founders braved the odds, ignored the experts, and established what eventually became the most powerful nation on the planet. There were major challenges along the way.  It took over a century to include those of a different color in those “unalienable rights,” at the cost of the bloodiest war the nation has ever fought. It took even more time to include women.

But that founding concept of “unalienable rights” of individual citizens has come under relentless attack in recent years. The prevailing concept, heralded by a self-proclaimed elite in the realms of the bulk of the mass media, academia, and at least half the political spectrum is that citizens only have what rights the current federal government deigns to provide. No less a figure than a United States Supreme Court judge, Elena Kagan, refused to acknowledge that citizens have those “unalienable rights.”

The Declaration noted that King George III “has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained.” In the 21st Century, many state laws seeking to ensure honest and fair elections through accurate voter registration rolls and voter ID requirements have been blocked by an excessively powerful federal government.
Sound medical advice, however, viagra 100mg pfizer is necessary before testosterone-based pills or patches are employed as enhancers female libido solutions in various forms and methods. generic viagra usa It is a fact that almost all men except for some of the very lucky ones suffer from one or more co-morbid conditions may be prescribed Bariatric surgery. The FDA is investigating the reported death of a 26-year old man, possibly associated viagra australia price unica-web.com with the use of Vigor-25. This cialis prices additional info can be found in the online pharmacies.
Thomas Jefferson’s great document pointed out that the monarch “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Currently, a vast, unelected and unresponsive Washington bureaucracy, seemingly immune to the people’s oversight, under various excuses and without the permission of appropriately enacted legislation, regulates almost every activity Americans engage in.
The Declaration pointed out that the King “has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.” President Obama has sought to override domestic control in areas such as internet use, trade, and environmental protection through a variety of international “agreements,” which are in reality treaties, which he has refused, in defiance of Constitutional procedure, to place before the Senate for approval.

Vital rights have been enshrined in the Constitution, written in the decade following Independence, but they are under consistent attack.

The First Amendment provides freedom of speech.  One-half of the membership of the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly attempted to limit that right over the past seven and one-half years. The Federal Elections Commission and the Internal Revenue Service have been used as weapons to attack dissenting voices. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment. Universities consistently seek to penalize conservative students.

The Second Amendment provided that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”  In repeated cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the right of individuals to do just that has been verified.  Despite that, the left of the political spectrum tirelessly seeks to ignore both the Constitution and the Court.

The Ninth Amendment ensures that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth Amendment expands on that, specifically guaranteeing that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept of unalienable rights and the production of a Bill of Rights were an evolution in human thought and practice.  In this past decade, however, that idea and practice is imperiled more than they have been at any time since the heroes of Philadelphia and the Continental Army stood tall against desperate odds.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Military Challenges Close to U.S. Homeland

The lack of appropriate coverage on key national security issues facing the U.S. remains a significant problem. This failure is a reflection of the partisanship of most of the major outlets. That negligence extends to military activity within the Americas.

The vast and growing threats from Russia, which now is the world’s most significant nuclear power (it has greater numbers and more modern equipment) China (which already has more submarines than the U.S. and by 2020 will have a larger navy) and Iran, with its arsenal of missiles and budding nuclear program, are magnified by the increasingly intimate relationship between those nations, which form an axis that is now the world’s most powerful military grouping. The danger is being brought close to the American homeland.

This is a roundup of recent dramatic developments that have not received adequate attention:

The Free Beacon disclosed that Moscow is constructing an electronic intelligence gathering facility in Nicaragua. Putin has also sold 50 T-72 tanks to the Central American nation.  This is another indication of the dramatic failure of the Obama Administration’s establishing diplomatic relations with the Castro regime, which, bizarrely enough, came just a month after Moscow resumed its naval presence on the island nation so close to the U.S. shore.

The general press has barely mentioned the dangerous and inflammatory move, just as they have failed to discuss at any length Russia’s nuclear patrols off U.S. coastlines, its military to military relations with Venezuela or its large-scale militarization of the Arctic. The socialist governments of Nicaragua and Venezuela have close ties to Cuba.

There are legitimate questions why Nicaragua would want tanks.  There are no threats facing the nation, and the military capabilityof its neighbors are close to nonexistent.

The U.S. Department of Defense notes that the presence of terrorist groups, barely ever mentioned in major media outlets, are also a key threat in Latin America. U.S. Southern Command commander Navy Adm. Kurt W. Tidd notes “there is longstanding concern in the region about organizations like Hezbollah — a Shiite Islamist militant group.”
After these the two, it’s now the time to move up the impotence fighting drug ranking. viagra fast The words said above are not for frightening, but to make a PDE-5 inhibitor work, sexual rx sildenafil djpaulkom.tv stimulation is needed. Only cialis generic pharmacy your doctor can give the advice that compliments your lifestyle. This medicine is not suggested in case if you allergic to some cialis 25mg ingredient in Kamagra.
Paul Coyer, writing in Forbes, China’s growing military presence in the region … is serving to undermine, aided by Washington’s neglect, the United States’ strategic position in its own Hemisphere… Illustrating the anti-American tenor of Chinese engagement in the defense arena is the fact that sales of Chinese military hardware have entered the region mostly through states that share an anti-American foreign policy orientation, particularly the “ALBA” states (Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América, or “Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America”, founded by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez with the aim of countering American influence in Latin America). Chinese resources to these states have allowed such virulently anti-American regimes as Venezuela’s to invite Iranian Quds forces to Latin America, and have indirectly enabled them to give basing rights to Russia, whose goal in gaining such rights is to challenge the United States in the Western Hemisphere…”

The Heritage Foundation’s Justin Johnson, in an exclusive interview on the Vernuccio/Novak Report, expressed deep concern over the 25% cut in the defense budget during the Obama Administration. (Defense spending accounts for about 16% of the overall federal budget.) He has noted that “The U.S. military seems to be breaking. Senior military leaders have made dire statements before Congress, and story after story is revealing the potentially deadly challenges facing our men and women in uniform.” He provided six examples of desperate needs:

  1. The Marine Corps is pulling parts off of museum planes to keep their F-18s flying. Even with that drastic action, only about 30 percent of their F-18s are ready to fly. Not only that, but instead of getting 25 or 30 hours a month in the cockpit, Marine Corps pilots are getting as little as four hours per month of flying time.
  2. Only one-third of Army brigadesare ready for combat. The Army has now fallen to the smallest level since before World War II, while the top Army general says that the Army would face “high military risk” if it were to fight a serious war.
  3. The Air Force is cannibalizing parts from some F-16’sto keep other F-16’s flying and is pulling parts off museum planes to keep their B-1 bombers flying. And half of Air Force squadrons are not prepared for serious combat.
  4. The Navy keeps extending deploymentsof its ships, but still doesn’t have enough to meet demand. While the Navy needs about 350 ships, today it only has 273
  5. Serious crashes of Marine Corps planes and helicopters are nearly double the 10-year average.
  6.  The Air Force’s B-52 bombers are an average of 53 years old.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Forces States on Syrian Refugees

A controversy in South Carolina over the placement of Syrian refugees has implications for similar efforts throughout the nation.

The New York Times notes that The Obama Administration has pledged to increase the number of worldwide refugees allowed in the U.S. each year from 70,000 to 100,000 by the year 2017.  In September, the Obama administration said it would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees within the next year.

According to  a November 2015 report by Business Insider  “a number of immigration-law experts say that even if a state refuses to cooperate with the federal government, governors won’t technically be able to bar the resettlement of refugees in their states.

“States have absolutely no legal authority to bar someone who is granted refugee status from entering their state, since it’s federal law that determines whether someone is a refugee,” Greg Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Business Insider.”

That view is partially supported by a Congressional Research Service analysis. “a state likely could not opt to participate actively in the resettlement of refugees from some countries but not others. In contrast, a state lacks the power to prohibit a Syrian refugee admitted into the United States from physically entering or remaining within the state’s jurisdiction… States can be seen to have some discretion as to whether their agencies participate in the federally funded refugee resettlement program. Nothing in federal law purports to require that states seek or receive federal refugee resettlement funds, and the Tenth Amendment proscribes Congress from directly ‘commandeering’ the states to administer a federal regulatory scheme. Thus, a state that previously made provisions for state agencies to participate in the federally funded refugee resettlement program could terminate these agencies’ participation, provided it complies with any conditions as to the time and manner of termination that it may have agreed to as a condition of its funding agreements.”

Basically, while governors cannot bar the refugees, they may not be forced to provide funding for their needs. However, it is unrealistic to believe that governors could effectively bar refugees from benefiting from state educational, health, and other benefits with danger of federal lawsuits being brought.

Originally, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had requested that refugees not be placed in her state due to security concerns, according to the Greenville Online site.   Now, however, critics have accused her of changing course and supporting White House plans.  In response, a civil action has been filed in the United States District Court, Columbia Division. While the case in question applies only to South Carolina, the points are relevant to any state that has been requested to take in Syrian refugees.

Paul Sutliff is an author and researcher on Islamic terror issues. Recently, he was accepted as an expert witness on the case. We asked him to summarize his affidavit on the legal contest:

“1. It is impossible to know if the South Carolina budget can afford the number of Syrian refugees sent.

  1. Federal funds for refugees in SC has expanded almost exponentially under President Obama, However, there is a history of demanding some of the funds back.

    2. Today, most of the buy levitra uk ED sufferers prefer to buy kamagra rather than other ED pills. Specialized doctors associated with the viagra pill uk http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/bulwark/ team will provide comprehensive solutions to achieve healthy parenthood. Fire, to stop the burning, that is to eliminate the excruciating pain that happens when a person’s joints, ligaments and spine related problems. 100mg viagra cost Some injections combine alprostadil with other drugs such as Super Kamagra and Extra Super Tadarise that help to treat this problem. cialis pharmacy online

  2. Federal funds do not cover housing.
  3. Day one refugees are received they are taken to apply for state welfare benefits. This is counted as becoming independent.
  4. Federal funding does not cover the cost of schooling their children which could be a very high expense dependent on familiarity with English and the level of need. It is expected most young girls may not have had much education.
  5. 2. Are refugees actual legal refugees under the 1980 Refugee Act?
  6. “The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” (PL 96-212. Sec. 212)
  7. Sunni Muslims are not persecuted in Syria–they are the persecutors of Christians and Jews.
  8. The UN assigns who are to come as refugees. This bad because the UN classifies persons as refugees who do not meet the US definition of refugee.
  9. I list those who are under persecution in this area.
  10. We cannot know if the persons are who they say they are.

[Editors Note: A RedState analysis agrees with Sutliff’s point, noting that the people involved “are not refugees as we ordinarily consider them. The UN High Commissioner On Refugees says 65% are military aged males. The original plan was to import 10,000 job seekers and potential terrorists, but Senate Democrats, deciding that they may not get enough bang for their buck, demand that at least 65,000 be brought into our communities.”]

  1. Refugee Plan places refugees as state dependents costing SC residents.
  2. It is difficult to get persons weaned off from the welfare system.
  3. The cost of refugees is then transferred from the feds to the state.
  4. Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Badadhi has stated he has sent some of his men amongst those who are coming here and to Europe.
  5. Both Muslim sources and American intel sources warn us of this.”