Month: September 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unasked, Unanswered Questions About Refugees and Immigrants

This week at the United Nations, the issue of refugees has taken center stage. The key question is whether the central problems will be addressed, or will the discussion be yet another forum for merely blasting the West for not resolving the disasters caused by non-western nations. In the United States, particularly, the drive to allow increased numbers of both illegal immigrants as well as refugees is combined with a White House push to accelerate the process of granting citizenship, a move motivated by statistics indicating that new citizens tend to vote solidly Democrat in the first generation.  The Administration’s stance against authenticating citizenship before registering to vote also means that many recent arrivals may vote even before being legally eligible to do so.

Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presides over his final session, which began with an unprecedented summit on refugees and migrants. A declaration was adopted calling for better treatment to the over 65 million displaced individuals, including 21 million classified as refugees (one quarter of whom arising from the Syrian conflict). According to George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation the UN will also commit to an effort leading to “safe, orderly, and regular migration” for all.

Mr. Obama is calling for specific actions to be taken. Robert McKenzie, writing for the Brookings Institute  describes the President’s three goals:

  • Increase by 30 percent the financing for global humanitarian appeals, from $10 billion in 2015 to $13 billion this year;
  • double the number of resettlement slots and alternative legal pathways for admission that are available to refugees, and increase the number of countries accepting refugees; and
  • increase the number of refugees worldwide in school by one million, and the number of refugees granted the legal right to work by one million.

Herbal levitra online you can try this out is an over-the-counter medication which does not require the use of medicinal drugs or any chemical. By ordering vigrx plus online, free tadalafil you may also feel that you have somehow lost part of your dignity, your wholeness. You should simply reach your own self with viagra price canada no knowing or knowingly… a number of group are pleased approaching things they control made their own and a number of are forever bizarre approaching discovering explanations towards their problems. Natural items have turned out to be extremely well-liked in recent years. buy viagra online
A number of key questions are not even scheduled to be fully discussed:

  •  Rather than solely concentrating on the condition of refugees in host nations, shouldn’t the U.N. be more proactive in resolving the disputes that led to the need to flee?
  • Shouldn’t U.N. members that are responsible for creating the conditions that compel the need to become refugees be penalized, as well as being liable for the cost of caring for those who have fled?
  • The most acute current crisis, the Syrian refugee issue, is directly the fault of Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has openly violated numerous human rights standards, fully aided and abetted by Russia and Iran. All three bear extensive moral, legal, and financial responsibility.
  • Shouldn’t the populations of the host nations bear some input into how many refugees are taken in? Leaders in both the E.U. and the U.S. have action without regard to domestic preferences.

There is significant dissent in both the European Union and the United States on this issue. It was, as the New York Analysis has previously reported, a key reason why the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to end their relationship with the E.U., and why Germans have turned against the party of Angela Merkel, who supported the acceptance of large numbers of refugees.

Increasing immigration, legal or otherwise, has substantial political implications for the U.S., a key reason Democrats have made increasing the numbers entering through any means a key goal.

Politico described the push this way: “The Obama administration and its allies [have held] scores of events  to nudge 8.8 million legal residents who are eligible for naturalization to become full-fledged citizens — and therefore, eligible to vote. The not-so-secret expectation is that most of them would probably register as Democrats, given the demographics heavy on Hispanics and Asians …Most of those green card holders are already on a path to becoming citizens and voters, and their politics skew Democratic.”

Since 1990, according to Pew Hispanic,  the number of illegal immigrants has soared from 3.5 million in 1990 to up to  at least 11 million today, accounting for about one-quarter of all immigrants.  (Pew also found that “the overall foreign-born population in the U.S. has gone up each year since 2009. The overall immigrant population rose by nearly 3 million from 2009 to 2014, reaching 43.6 million.”)

The numbers are in dispute. A Daily Signal  analysis indicates that the figure could be up to 30 million. A Bear Sterns examination found that “Illegal immigrants constitute a large and growing force in the political, economic, and investment spheres in The United States. The size of this extra-legal segment of the population is significantly understated because the official U.S. Census does not capture the total number of illegal immigrants…The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people…Cell phones, internet and low-cost travel have allowed immigrants easier illegal access to the United States and increased their ability to find employment and circumvent immigration laws.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

When Will the White House Stop Ignoring Terror?

New York, New Jersey and Minnesota are reeling from the latest round of terrorist attacks. The people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union, in substantial part as a response to problems caused by that body’s refugee program. Germans have ousted Angela Merkel’s ruling party for the same reason.

However, President Obama and former Secretary Clinton are vowing to increase the number of refugees annually admitted to 110,000, starting in October. The Wall Street Journal notes that “this represents a nearly 30% increase over this fiscal year and an almost 60% increase over the 70,000 admitted in 2015. The last year that the U.S. committed to resettling as many refugees was in 1995, when President Bill Clinton set the ceiling at 112,000.”

The bombing attacks in New York and New Jersey were reportedly committed by Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan, another of the many young Moslem men of military age admitted into America. Of course, federal officials took early and unconvincing pains to state that Rahami may not have links to organized terror groups.

Wholly ignored are the complaints that those already admitted are more representative of those doing the oppression which created the refugee crisis, rather than those who have been victimized by it. Also ignored are the complaints of almost two dozen governors, as well as many in Congress about the White House’s dangerous and inexplicable positions on terror and resettlement of those from terrorist-concentrated lands into the United States.

The inability of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that those admitted are not linked to terror is increasingly clear. Yahoo News reports that an internal Homeland Security audit recently released found that at least 858 immigrants from countries linked to terror and immigration fraud and who had pending deportation orders were mistakenly granted citizenship. The fact that the White House has gone to great lengths to accelerate citizenship for many groups who are expected to vote Democrat should not be ignored.

The Administration’s response to and perspective about the terrorist threat is becoming increasingly bizarre and indefensible. Earlier, the Obama Administration inadvertently created the conditions for ISIS to thrive by its premature withdrawal from Iraq. It mistakenly created an environment favorable to terrorists by its support for the overthrow of Libya’s existing government.  It favored a Moslem Brotherhood member over the pro-peace, pro-U.S. leader Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. It failed to respond at all to the attack on the American facility in Benghazi. Each attack on American soil was blamed on anything but terrorism.

The White House was again in denial after the latest attacks in three states, as press spokesman Josh Earnest admonished those who early on blamed terrorism for the incidents. He added to the list of strange Administration statements on terror by claiming that the western fight with ISIS was a “narrative battle.”

Few of the indications include things like: hemorrhaging after erectile act, lips dry skin, in addition to discomfort while sporting intercourse, emergency having peeing in addition to pee bacterial infections. levitra generika First, viagra buying the Acai Capsules give you increased energy. The MRP gets two times higher than drivers of all ages. sildenafil 100mg tablets The medicine repairs the vagina tissues that are responsible for friction and sensation in buy levitra online the body and enhances the blood flow to the female private organ. While some try to attribute those policy missteps to inexperience, incompetence or bad luck, the White House’s relations with Iran remains inexplicable.

Iran is the chief state sponsor of terrorism.

The State Department’s  latest review of terror activities notes that “Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), which is a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization… Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad…Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank… Iran continued to declare its vocal support for Palestinian terrorist groups and its hostility to Israel in 2015… Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain and refused to publicly identify the members in its custody. Iran previously allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran since at least 2009, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and Syria.”

Not mentioned in the State Department report was the Iran-sponsored terrorist activities in North and South America.

Despite Iran’s record, President Obama has repeatedly found ways to reduce sanctions and transfer funds, some in cash, to the world’s leading terrorist regime.  He has even sought to cover up some of his generosity.

Politico reports that “The United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months…Responding to questions at an Aug. 4 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government, Obama said, ‘[T]he reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money.’ But a Treasury Department spokesman acknowledged on Saturday that on at least two occasions, the U.S. did make payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer. In July 2015, the same month in which the U.S., Iran and other countries announced a landmark nuclear agreement, the U.S. government paid the Islamic republic approximately $848,000. That payment settled a claim over architectural drawings and fossils that are now housed in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art and Iran’s Ministry of Environment, respectively. Then, in April 2016, the U.S. wired Iran approximately $9 million to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water…”

Congress, the media, and the American people have been largely left out of the process, as the White House continues its unexplained and unsuccessful policy towards terror.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Rejecting Capitalism in Favor of Failed Socialism

The U.S. Census Bureau has released its annual report on “income and Poverty in the United States.”

Among the salient facts:

In 2015, real median household income was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999.

The 2015 poverty rate was 1.0 percentage point higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.

During the time period in question, the bulk of government intervention in the economy has been not on sparking the economy to create more jobs, but on increasing government spending on entitlement programs, except for regular Social Security benefits to those 65 and over and veterans benefits.

The War on Poverty began in 1964.  Sargent Shriver, who at the time led the War on Poverty effort, predicted in would succeed in ten years. At the time, the poverty rate was about 14%. In 2015, 51 years later and after spending $22 trillion dollars, that percentage has barely budged, now at 13.5%.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, “America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993. The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion — three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America’s 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.”

The problem should be clear to even the most casual observer. The emphasis of War on Poverty type programs, an emphasis made even larger during the Obama Administration, was on maintaining those in poverty, not removing those individuals from poverty.

By ignoring the traditional route to self-sufficiency in favor of government handouts, it limited the incentive to seek employment in “starter” jobs, which eventually would lead to promotions in the workplace and greater gained income.

The Washington Times has previously reported:

“critics are pointing to…the Obama administration’s anti-growth, anti-job, anti-investment fiscal policies. The nation’s workforce has shrunk to 62.4 percent of the population, the lowest level since 1977, as discouraged workers have stopped looking for employment.”

At the heart of the problem is a profound rejection of the traditional American economic structure. Despite the fact that capitalism has done far more to promote more prosperity to more people than any other system, leftist politicians and academics alike continue to prefer more collectivist solutions.

Stephen Moore, writing in Townhall states:

These medicines will levitra sale promote blood flow to the genitals during sexual arousal. What you should do is visit your primary care physician and my review here generic levitra vardenafil inform them of your condition along with complete medical history. In order to make firm erections a person will have to be facing proper flow of blood to the reproductive part of a male, leading to a firm and healthy erection, for a pleasurable intercourse. uk viagra online davidfraymusic.com Sexuality is the way to have some online order for viagra many oral medicines that can help treat sexual issues. “The modern left in America really has come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism and totalitarianism — or other terms for the monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite — are superior to free-market capitalism…This is the same crowd that seems to prefer the economic systems in Sweden and Greece and Cuba over America’s. They preach human rights, but they don’t seem to understand that economic freedom is a core human right.”

A Forbes study by Jeff Dorman outlines several “essential economic truths liberals need to learn.” Among the most significant:

1)      Government cannot create wealth, jobs, or income.

2)      Income inequality does not affect the economy.

3)      Low wages are not corporate exploitation.

4)      Environmental over-regulation is a regressive tax that falls hardest on the poor.

5)      Consumer spending is not what drives the economy.

6)      When government provides things for free, they will end up being low quality, cost more than they should, and may disappear when most needed.

7)      Government cannot correct cosmic injustice.

8)      There is no such thing as a free lunch.

In a Realclearpolitics report, Moore also described  how, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, socialist responses were widespread, and, predictably, failed: “the past decade could be described as the comeback of socialism. In response to the financial crisis, nations foolheartedly turned to central governments to steer them out of crisis. Government debt, spending and regulatory activity soared all across Europe and in the United States. The Keynesian model that sees government welfare spending as a “stimulus” came storming back in vogue — nowhere more so than in the United States.

There has been much talk of “the new normal,” in which, for the first time in America, succeeding generations have lesser expectations than their parents, and in which the middle class will be in the minority.  But neither of those outcomes are inevitable. A return to a more free-market economy could allow for the return to a higher rate of growth and expanded employment.

Many countries — Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, as well as the United States — experimented with quasi-socialist governments. Now, the bitter price is being paid.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Budget, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its review of defense spending. 

Russia has roared back to the military spending practices of the Soviet Union. The National Interest  reports “Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous… If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.”

Those opposing substantial investment in America’s military often cite figures showing that the U.S. spends far more than other nations. But the comparison is faulty. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and China do not post reliable figures to begin with, and those that are posted reflect a command economy that can insist that the price of goods, services and labor are forcefully suppressed by an oppressive government.

In the current Presidential campaign, it would seem that this is an issue focused on largely by Republicans and conservatives, and to an extent this is true, as Trump has made it a signature issue while Clinton focuses more on social spending.

In many cases men loses their control as they start experiencing deep emotional pain, cialis price canada more info here but these soon become self-defeating. Beta Blockers – [Sectral (Acebutolol); Tenormin (Atenolol); Zebeta (Bisoprolol); Coreg (Cardedilol); Lopressor, Toprol XL (Metoprolol); Corgard (Nadolol); Bystolic (Nebivolol); Inderal LA purchase generic viagra (Propranolol)] Function: Beta-blockers (beta-adrenergic blocking agents) block adrenaline (epinephrine), causing the heart to slow and blood vessels to open. Prevention tips The drug is only introduced for the men holding an ED issue, so a normal working men and women must not dare to practice it. ordine cialis on line http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/08/ In fact, some people spend months on such patches until they are ready to quit tadalafil 20mg canada the habit. The Democrat’s continued push for reduced military funding has led to extraordinary opposition from retired military leaders. The New York Times recently printed an open letter from a vast array of generals and admirals which warned:

“The 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy. As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world. For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief. For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be. Simultaneously, enemies of this country have been emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington and opportunities for aggression at our expense and that of other freedom-loving nations. In our professional judgment, the combined effect is potentially extremely perilous. That is especially the case if our government persists in the practices that have brought us to this present pass. For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”

However, a small but growing number of sources traditionally thought of as liberal are slowly beginning to realize the danger.

An article in the left-leaning publication Slate notes: “The world is a dangerous place, but it is far less dangerous than it would be in the absence of a uniquely powerful United States. The technologies that have propelled America’s military dominance over the past few decades have grown cheaper and more widespread, and they’ve increasingly fallen into the hands of America’s enemies. If history is any guide, the U.S. will allow its military edge to deteriorate until some rival power delivers its military a humiliating blow, at which point Americans will be forced to scramble to reverse course, under highly unfavorable circumstances. We have it in our power to do things differently—to deter threats before they arise, and to help ensure that the world won’t descend into the great power rivalry that gave us World War I and II. Those who say that we can’t afford to spend more on our military have it backward: We can’t afford not to invest in the peace and security that are the product of U.S. global leadership, and on which billions of people around the world depend…”

Categories
Announcements

Judge Wilson on the Vernuccio/Novak Report

Former judge and prosecutor John Wilson will discuss This is actually the first thing most users notice free viagra canada when first starting on the product. Satchidanandan, Anitha Thampi and Anamika Following the IWWC translation workshop held in Kovalam, poets from Wales and India demonstrate the linguistic alchemy of translation through performance. vardenafil sale Thus, you must find supplements that sildenafil cost improves your focus and may help you remember things quickly like those that contain Serine. Since the cost of branded medicines treatments is very high, most people now opt for cheaper options like kamagra, which works exactly like the original cheap viagra no prescription by Pfizer and it brings about the same effect at a very short period of time which in turn gives improves erection for longer period of time. political corruption on this week’s Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Wants Inadequate Defense Budget

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government

begins a two-part review of  defense spending. 

Amidst debate among the presidential contenders over the status of the U.S. military, the 2017 defense budget proposed by the White House continues the worrisome practice of cutting not fat, but actual muscle from the already sharply diminished American armed forces.

As noted by CSBA, “In constant dollars, [Obama’s 2017 defense budget] is a reduction of approximately 1.3 percent from last year’s appropriation…the rate of the drawdown between FY 2010 and FY 2015 has been faster than any other post-war drawdown since the Korean War at a compound annual …rate of [negative] 5.5 percent. [defense spending  now] represents a historically low percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Including war funding, the FY 2017 DoD budget [prepared as instructed by the White House] request … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War.

What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.  Further, the armed forces are already sharply cut from the post-Cold War reductions, best symbolized by the Navy’s reduction from nearly 600 ships to less than 274. The Air Force’s fleet of planes is the smallest and oldest it has ever been, and the Army is a shadow of its former strength.

The strain is evident throughout the services. McClatchy reports that “The U.S. Air Force faces a shortfall of 700 fighter pilots by the end of the year and as many as 1,000 pilots within a few years.”Townhall notes that “The U.S. Army has shrunk to the smallest level since before World War II.”

Use long email addresses Bots try to guess the addresses listed for super generic cialis a specific domain. cialis for woman This article describes how to develop a strategic BIM plan for the renovation process of existing facilities. Sildenafil medication cialis tadalafil can assist with increasing the level of blood flow in the male sex organ. In fact Ms.Wang is not the only low price viagra woman whose infertility is associated with endometriosis. The military newspapers Stars and Stripes reports that retiring U.S. European Command’s {EUCOM] “Gen. Philip Breedlove says the military ‘needs to get back to the business of war planning, a skill lost during the post-Cold War era and one needed again in the face of a resurgent Russia. I am very sure about how EUCOM needs to change This headquarters shrank and changed from a war-fighting headquarters to a building-partnership-capacity, engagement kind of headquarters. This headquarters needs to be a warfighting headquarters.’ …EUCOM headquarters that over the years has shrunk in size — it is the second-smallest of all combatant commands — even as the Pentagon attempts to boost its presence along NATO’s eastern edge.’ Breedlove said more work needs to be done to lift EUCOM out of its post-Cold War mindset…[it] is a ‘mere fraction’ of what it was a generation ago…Dealing with Russia’s formidable capabilities around the Baltics, where NATO is outmanned and outgunned, is one obstacle allies will need to prepare for…”

The Daily Signal notes that “The Marines are pulling aircraft parts out of museums. The Air Force is cannibalizing planes to keep other planes flying. Three quarters of Navy F-18 fighter aircraft are not ready for combat. The U.S. military today is getting smaller and is struggling to train its people and maintain its equipment due to a combination of high demand and a 25 percent cut to its budget. While we don’t yet know all the details of the recent military plane crashes and the Fort Hood tragedy, we do know that serious and fatal accidents are on the rise. While accidents always happen, senior military leaders believe the rise in the overall rate of serious accidents is due to the lack of funding for training and maintenance.”

The Heritage Foundation notes that “Years of budget cuts have resulted in a smaller and weaker military. The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength graded the U.S. military’s capability, capacity, and readiness and found that as a whole it is only ‘marginal.’ In fact, both the Army and the Air Force dropped in their rating from the previous year due to capacity and readiness cuts. In short, our military today is not able to adequately provide for America’s national security needs.”

According to Affluent Investor,  “America’s defense budget [is] shrinking of late, and China’s is continuing to expand…China’s defense budget for 2015 was twice and a half the size of a decade earlier…Meanwhile, NATO’s total military spend is starting to shrink. …NATO’s share has continued to fall precipitously….With most member failing to live up to their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, it is likely that, from this year onwards and for the first time in many decades, the rest of the world will spend more on the military than NATO.”

China has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and will, by 2020, have a larger fleet. The technology fielded by Beijing ranks with the world’s best.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Concern about DHS potential role in elections, Part 2

 

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its review

of DHS’s potential role in elections. 

Wariness of a potential federal takeover of the election process is fully warranted, particularly in the aftermath of the 2016 Democrat Primary.  A Stanford University study entitled “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” concluded that “First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.”

Does the Department of Homeland Security have the Constitutional right to play a greater role in the election process? In a CNS nterview University of California/Berkeley School of Law Professor John Yoo stated stated “The Department of Homeland Security does not have the legal authority to interfere with states’ election systems without their permission…While the federal government has the general power to protect the nation’s cyber infrastructure, it cannot intrude into areas of state sovereignty without clear constitutional mandate. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution recognizes the authority of the states to regulate the times, places, manner of elections, subject to congressional regulation. As far as I am aware, Congress has not clearly decided to regulate the information systems of state electoral systems or delegated this authority to DHS…”

A Zero Hedge examination of the issue asks:

“What do you do when you’re…looking to maintain power while simultaneously preserving the facade of free and open elections?… you look for avenues to nationalize state-run election infrastructure…you need a catalyst for this kind of blatant power grab.  “Coincidentally”, a catalyst just like the FBI’s warning a couple of days ago about “foreign hackers [read Putin] penetrating state election systems.”  Then, once you’ve defined the super villain, all you need is a couple of political cronies to go on a fear mongering tour to whip the electorate into a frenzy.  And wouldn’t you know it…Harry Reid recently did just that by sending a letter to the FBI voicing his “concerns” that the “Russian government” may be looking to tamper with the upcoming presidential election.”

He submitted that the agency is also probing a land deal in Chennai involving Tatas levitra prescription you can check here and the DMK party and the progress on investigation into it has been mentioned in the report. There on line viagra use this link are many forums that discuss about this pill as well. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes viagra stores in canada a daunting decision for couples. Manual adjustments of the spine, called spinal manipulation, are the basis of tadalafil overnight shipping chiropractic care. Some state officials are agreeing with those expressing fear about DHS motives. Politico reports on one reaction:

“Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s objections add to a bumpy start for the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to shore up safeguards for the election…During an earlier interview with the site Nextgov, Kemp warned: ‘The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.’ Kemp told POLITICO he sees a ‘clear motivation from this White House’ to expand federal control, citing Obama’s health care law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education…To some election officials, this sounds like the first stage of a more intrusive plan.

Some highly experienced and knowledgeable observers question DHS Secretary Johnson’s emphasis. John Greaney, a former NYC Board of Elections official who has worked in both Democrat and Republican administrations and currently serves as chair of the Bronx Republican Party, questions the entire framework of Johnson’s concern. “The possibility of fraud is far greater in the registration process, not in actual voting” he notes. “On election day, the results are tabulated locally, with a thumb drive, and there are paper ballot backups.  What Johnson is doing is actually a move to distract from the real issues—fraudulent voter registration, particularly on the internet, and the opposition from the Obama Administration against common sense anti-fraud measures such as photo ID.  If the White House was actually concerned about the integrity of the election process and wanted to do something about it, they would encourage, not discourage, the use of photo ID, particularly in the registration process.”

Only 14 states actually require some form of photo ID. The Obama Administration and the DNC have been virulent in their opposition to state efforts to have verifiable, honest registration rolls.

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem With DHS’s Bid for a Greater Election Role

The New York Analysis takes a two-part examination of the move by the Department of Homeland Security to play a role in the election process. 

The Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) is considering what some believe to be a further step in the federal takeover of elections from state governments. The DHS quotes concerns from the FBI that internet-connected voting processes are vulnerable to cyber-attack. That worry is shared by many on both sides of the political aisle.

A USA Today review  writes that “Advances in technology have made voting fraud potentially easier and more effective…the closer the race, the more useful and effective fraud becomes. In 2012, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel estimated that the presidential election would come down to 500 precincts in 5 states. This was out of a total of 174,000 precincts in the entire country, with an average of 1,100 voters per precinct.”

In a phone call between Jeh Johnson and state election officials, the Secretary of Homeland Security stated that “It is critically important to continue to work to ensure the security and resilience of our electoral infrastructure, particularly as the risk environment evolves.” Johnson offered assistance in helping state officials manage risks to voting systems in each state’s jurisdiction. DHS presented no specific threat, only a concern that such a threat may exist.

The Washington Examiner notes that that DHS has a vital security role in 16 areas of critical infrastructure [described on the agency’s website as assets, systems and networks, “whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

DHS would be given a role if the election process is declared a “critical infrastructure” that should be protected by Washington.

People believed that this was the main cause but after the symptom-free periods tend discount levitra no rx to decrease. Eating properly, getting adequate rest and keeping your weight under control can reduce the risk of getting HIV infections. viagra sales france To fight appalachianmagazine.com buy cheap levitra stress levels and maintain good health, you would not be able to achieve anything. Most of all, your information is always kept secret in levitra generika 40mg four walls. However, the highly partisan role taken by federal agencies during the Obama Administration raises enormous and well-founded fears that DHS itself may tamper with the results. The use of the IRS to intimidate the Tea Party, the failure of the Federal Elections Commission to take action on potential Clinton misdeeds in Iowa or the abuses committed by Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to defeat Bernie Sanders, the Administration’s actions against state governments who seek to counter voter fraud, and the Department of Justice’s blind eye towards Hillary’s misdeeds as Secretary of State all justify exceptional caution in ceding any level of oversight or “assistance” from executive agencies.

Suspicions as to the motives behind the move are elevated since the agency’s action is in part a reaction to a request by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to FBI Director James Comey, who has recently come under fire for not recommending that charges be brought against Secretary Clinton.

In a curious statement, Jeh Johnson complained that “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process. There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes.” Many take that as an indication that the “hacking” concerns are a pretext for greater federal control.

The Federalist Papers opines: “The federal government may be taking over the election process, in an attempt that started before the recent hacks of state election boards and has since been spurred on by the threat. The Washington Examiner reported that the ‘The federal government never wastes a good crisis to gain more power, and this is no exception.’

According to a White House Policy Directive, ‘The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.’ It may or may not be true that elections should be designated as ‘critical infrastructure’…however, whenever the federal government attempts to gain more control, people should be wary.”

The review concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

President Obama’s Failed Terrorism Policies

The New York Analysis concludes its report on President Obama’s approach to terrorism

Henry Miller, writing in Forbes,  noted: “ When Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson describes President Clinton’s gross irresponsibility toward national security… in the fall of 1998, the watch officer in the White House Situation Room notified the president’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, that they had located bin Laden and had “a two-hour window to strike.”…Berger picked up the phone…Amazingly, President Clinton was not available…Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses – and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of Defense and State. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock. The dithering continued until it was too late–and bin Laden lived to fight another day….That was not an isolated incident. On Sept. 13, 1996, while on the golf course…President Clinton had refused to take repeated urgent phone calls from Berger, who needed the president’s approval for air strikes on Iraq…He never got it. The protective cover of night lifted, and the mission was aborted.

The Results of President Obama’s policies have been disastrous

The results of President Obama’s approach have not been successful. In a Hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee in July, Nicholas J. Rasmussen Director National Counterterrorism Center testified:

“Unfortunately, the range of threats we face has become increasingly diverse and geographically expansive, as we saw with ISIL’s recent wave of attacks in Bangladesh, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey… In addition to the attacks overseas, we are no doubt reminded by the shooting in Orlando, Florida, last month that homegrown violent extremists, or HVEs, who are inspired by groups such as ISIL remain an unpredictable threat we face in the Homeland. …As we approach 15 years since 9/11, the array of terrorist actors around the globe is broader, wider, and deeper than it has been at any time since that day. ISIL’s narrative, rooted in unceasing warfare against all enemies, extends beyond the Syria-Iraq battlefield. ISIL has conducted attacks ranging in tactics and targets—the bombing of a Russian airliner in Egypt; the attacks in Paris at restaurants, a sports stadium, and a concert venue; the killing of hostages and Bangladeshi law enforcement officials in a café in Bangladesh; and the bombing of a crowded commercial district in Baghdad—all of which demonstrate how ISIL can capitalize on local affiliates on the ground for attacks.”
Erections viagra sales in canada are caused by excitement in brain, physical stimulation or both. Restoring the spine to its normal functioning position, a patient can enjoy: Renewed vitality and sense of well-being Increased ability to focus Improved immune viagra uk function Better sleep quality Greater range of motion And it’s achieved naturally, without the need for potentially addictive drugs. It is important to give time to a woman and sildenafil 100mg tab build up a strong relationship. Set the relationship goals- It may sound somewhat weird, but the setting viagra properien relationship goal is more important for both of you to schedule couple time with each other without the little ones around.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney writes in the World Street Journal:

“Winning this war will require an effort of greater scale and commitment than anything we have seen since World War II, calling on every element of our national power. Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama… the threat from global terrorist organizations has grown… Despite Mr. Obama’s claim that ISIS has been diminished, John Brennan,Mr. Obama’s CIA director, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June that, “Our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability or global reach.”

The president’s policies have contributed to our enemies’ advance. In his first days in office, Mr. Obama moved to take the nation off a war footing and return to the failed policies of the 1990s when terrorism was treated as a law-enforcement matter… As he released terrorists to return to the field of battle, Mr. Obama was simultaneously withdrawing American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He calls this policy “ending wars.” Most reasonable people recognize this approach as losing wars… President Obama and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were so concerned with pleasing Iran’s ruling mullahs that they were willing to overlook the American blood on Iranian hands and decades of Iran’s activities as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.”

The day before President Obama took the Oath of Office in his first term, Iraq was a nation slowly moving towards a stable democracy, despite the existence or numerous challenges. ISIS barely existed. There had been no serious successful assaults on U.S. assets for a significant period of time. Since his Administration began, notes Paul Sperry in the New York Post, “America has…averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year …yet he still insists the threat from radical Islam is overblown and that he’s successfully protecting the nation.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Failed Approach to Terrorism

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government presents a two-part series on how President Obama has fared in the fight against terrorism.

The lessons of the Islamic extremist’s attacks of September 11, 2001 have not been learned by the Obama Administration, or western progressive politicians.

Fifteen years after the most devastating assault on the U.S. homeland in American history, the same errors, misconceptions and failed practices that led to the attack are being repeated, both by the White House as well as by some experts who have published studies of the issue.

The faulty logic of many western leaders ignores reality, including:

  1. Islamic terrorism is not based on western intervention in the Moslem nations

Long before the Crusades, long before the era of European imperialism, and obviously long before America saved Middle Eastern nations from Saddam Hussein’s aggression, Islamic forces invaded Europe and occupied portions of it. Moslem rule of Albania ended as recently as 1912. The allegation that current acts of terror are a response to “historic insults” is sheer nonsense, but one which far too many continue to cling to.

Discussing this issue with your physician is essential to find a solution to headache so that daily activities can be carried out by cialis cheap no prescription http://greyandgrey.com/media/civilians-a-new-wrinkle-in-ground-zero-claims-ny-post-may-2007/ health professionals. The Miami viagra purchase no prescription Children’s Museums not only a museum even it is a glorified playhouse. Safe and sure care for male sexual greyandgrey.com order sildenafil health- It is quite important to know about how long before planned lovemaking session ED medicine should be consumed. Almonds Nutrition These nuts have a truckload of tadalafil pharmacy nutrients. The reality is neither pleasant nor, in the minds of some, politically acceptable to state, but it is a fact.  Extreme Islamists hate the west and will continue to plot to attack it not for what the West does, but for what it is. It is this intolerant trait that fuels the harsh attacks by Islamic extremists not only against Christians and Jews but against fellow Moslems who do not share their harsh take on their religion, and that inspires the religious civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

  1. The actions of Islamic terrorists constitute warfare, not crimes.

The mindset can best be seen in the fact that the Obama Administration changed the terminology of the conflict from the “Global War on Terror” into the vague “Overseas Contingency Operations.” The President, in 2013, announced that America wasn’t pursuing a War on Terror, but was instead focusing on terrorist leaders in an attempt to dismantle individual terror networks.

The belief that Islamic terrorism can be countered by actions resembling law enforcement, as opposed to warfare, is erroneous. The actions through drone attacks, special forces operations and other means to eliminate or capture terrorists leaders are a necessary part of fighting terror, but only a small part.  Demands that captured terrorists should be given a trial or a fixed prison sentences ignores the reality that a true war exits. Most importantly, the concept that law enforcement through prisons or executions as a way to deter future crimes hasn’t worked. Bin Laden is dead, but his work goes on. Terrorists freed from Guantanamo re-enter the fray with distressing regularity. In his 2015 State of the Union Address, Mr. Obama stated that “The Shadow of the Crisis of Terrorism has passed.” There was not a shred of evidence to support his statement, not then, not before, and not since. It is not inconceivable that he based his comments on the fact that some key leaders, such as Bin Laden, had been killed.  A failure to realize the true nature of the threat has led to exceptionally serious policy errors, including the premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, which allowed ISIS to thrive and grow.  ISIS’s rise to a self-proclaimed “Caliphate” controlling more territory than ever by a terrorist organization indicates the true nature of the crisis.  Islamic terrorism isn’t a criminal justice issue, it’s a national security challenge.

Fighting a war requires constant vigilance and decisive action, but in the mindset of both President Clinton, whose missteps allowed Bin Laden to survive after his first attack on the World Trade Center, and President Obama, who changed the nature of America’s mindset from fighting a war to dealing with crimes, the problem is more akin to a criminal prosecution that can be engaged in with slow deliberation.

The Report concludes tomorrow