Month: September 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama move vs. Internet Freedom Challenged

One of the enduring mysteries of the Obama Administration may be probed in an upcoming Senate hearing.  For reasons that have never been adequately explained, the President decided to end U.S. oversight of key internet functions and replace it with a multinational organization influenced in part by countries that engage in censorship.

A key battle in this most significant free speech fight in decades will take place on September 14, as the Senate Subcommittee on “Oversight Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts” convenes a hearing on the potential watershed moment.

According to a release  by Subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz, “The hearing will investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.”

The hearing, entitled “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet” is designed to investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.

Cruz, along with Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act in June, which seeks to prevent the Obama administration from relinquishing oversight of critical Internet functions and protect national security by ensuring that the United States maintains sole ownership of key functions. The Texas Senator recently unveiled a “countdown clock” site to promote awareness of the September 30 deadline for Congress to take action to stop the administration’s transition.

The Administration seeks to make its move final by October 1.  There has been no explanation from the White House about the significance of that date, just as there has been no explanation for the reasons for the move at all.

Opponents are engaging in urgent attempts to stop the move. A  website  outlines their concerns: “The Obama administration is pushing through a radical proposal to take control of Internet domains …If that proposal goes through, countries like Russia, China, and Iran could be able to censor speech on the Internet, including here in the U.S. by blocking access to sites they don’t like. Right now, the Obama administration’s proposal to give away the Internet is an extraordinary threat to our freedom and it’s one that many Americans don’t know anything about.”
If you are taking some high-dosage medicines since a long time there still utilized today and they work, rapidly and normally to give https://pdxcommercial.com/portland-housing-emergency-renter-protections-extension-portland-city-council/ ordering viagra from india you harder erections, expanded moxie and all the more fulfilling sex… It is quite a disgusting viagra side effects experience, exploring the health market. You should also make Continue Shopping order cheap cialis lifestyle changes and consume healthy diet regularly. The neuromuscular therapy puts concentrated pressure at alternating levels on areas of lowest prices cialis muscle spasm.
Critics of the President’s move note that the White House lacks the funding authority to make the transition. Politico reports that Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), chair of the Commerce Committee, will seek to delay Obama’s internet plans through the upcoming continuing budget resolution.

As noted in a Washington Examiner   interview, “Congress has passed legislation to prohibit the federal government from using tax dollars to allow the transition, and pointed out that the feds are constitutionally prohibited from transferring federal property without approval from Congress.”

Numerous organizations advocating free speech and adherence to Constitutional restrictions on presidential spending actions have signed off on a letter to Congressional leaders urging opposition to Obama’s action:

“We write to urge Congress to defend its Power of the Purse—and Internet freedom.

“Our Constitution rests on the idea that the “Power of the Purse” belongs to Congress, not the President … the Administration appears determined to violate clear appropriations prohibiting the transition of the Internet domain system without authorization. If the Administration does not relent, Congress should sue. Congress twice enacted appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds “to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA… This ‘Transition’ would end the U.S. government’s historic role as a guarantor of Internet governance.”

“…Members of both parties should be able to unite around defending the Power of the Purse, the most fundamental Constitutional power of the American People’s elected representatives. If enacted legislation is no longer considered binding, a fundamental check on Executive power will have been lost. Legislators also have a solemn responsibility to future generations to ensure that the future of the Internet is not placed at risk by prematurely ending U.S. oversight…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Iran’s Missile Threat

Tehran’s progress in missile technology points to the regime growing from a regional power to a major international threat.

Iran’s missile technology advances, despite international sanctions. The Washington Free Beacon  reports that “Iranian officials [have] announced … that the country is preparing to launch three new satellites into space, renewing concerns from defense experts about Iran’s ongoing research into long-range ballistic missile technology that could help it fire a nuclear weapon at Western nations.”

Despite the fact that the launch would violate United Nations restrictions against missile technology (2015 U.N. Resolution 2231  calling upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons) the U.S. State Department has not opposed the launch.

Portions of Iran’s missile technology may soon rank among the world’s most advanced. Global Security reports that the nation is developing a supersonic maritime cruise missile. The nation has openly threatened the U.S. Navy, running mock attacks against its vessels, and engaging in training geared towards destroying American aircraft carriers.

According to the Iran Primer:

  • “Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. (Israel has more capable ballistic missiles, but fewer in number and type.) Most were acquired from foreign sources, notably North Korea. The Islamic Republic is the only country to develop a 2,000-km missile without first having a nuclear weapons capability.
  • Iran is still dependent on foreign suppliers for key ingredients, components and equipment, but it should eventually be able to develop long-range missiles over time, including an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile or ICBM.
  • The military utility of Iran’s current ballistic missiles is limited because of poor accuracy, so missiles are not likely to be decisive if armed with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. But Tehran could use its missiles as a political or psychological weapon to terrorize an adversary’s cities and pressure its government.
  • Iran should not be able to strike Western Europe before 2017 or the United States before 2020—at the earliest.
  • Iran’s space program, which includes the successful launch of a small, crude satellite into low earth orbit using the Safircarrier rocket, proves the country’s growing ambitions and technical prowess.”

Impotence usually happens to older men these days are facing this issue. cipla tadalafil Just check with your doctor and find out sildenafil india the status of your health. As a way to viagra online purchase correctly analyze attention deficit it’s needed a family doctor to judge your whole indications along with remove almost every other circumstances. Keep your family and professional viagra price life separate.
Kelsey Davenport, Greg Thielmann, and Daryl G. Kimball, writing in Arms Control.org note that “Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests…should not come as a surprise…There should be consequences for violations of Security Council resolutions…Despite the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 in 2010, which prohibits Iran from testing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, Tehran has carried out at least eight tests of medium-range systems in violation of resolution… Iran has repeatedly asserted that it does not and will not in the future accept UN Security Council-imposed limits on its ballistic missile program, which it says is necessary for its own self-defense.”

As noted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies “Iran has already made major progress in producing its own ballistic and cruise missiles. … it already has a major missile force, is working on larger boosters and solid fuel systems, and seems to be seeking to develop a precision strike capability for its conventionally armed missiles. It is also clear that Iran has already had major technology transfers from North Korea and that it has been able to use its extensive network of purchasing offices and cover organizations to buy critical missile technology.

  • Iran is already a serious and growing missile power, has a steadily more sophisticated technology and production base, and has access to North Korean missile developments.
  • It is far from clear that Iran will seek to buy entire missile systems from other countries eight years from the time the agreement goes into force. But it will be a steadily growing missile threat regardless of the nuclear arms agreement.
  • Iran can probably acquire enough key technology through various cover organizations, under the guise of building its space program or by buying dual-use technology to make steady improvements in the accuracy and reliability of its missiles. The eight-year limit in the Iran nuclear arms agreement seems unlikely to have much impact on this aspect of Iranian capability.
  • The is no valid way to estimate how soon Iran can shift from a missile force that largely lacks the accuracy and lethality to hit and destroy critical military and infrastructure targets with conventional warheads to gaining such a capability. It is possible—and perhaps even likely—that it will make major progress well before the eight-year limit expires.
  • Iran already has considerable capability to use its other antiship missiles to carry out precision strikes against combat or commercial surface ships. Some are long range and land based. Iran’s missile threat needs to be viewed in broad terms, not simply in terms of the capability of its ballistic missiles to strike land targets.
  • Iran already has armed Hezbollah with more accurate shorter-range missiles, as well as given it a much largely overall inventory it could use against Israel. It does not have to rely only on its own missile forces to present a more advanced threat.
  • The Arab Gulf states—and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in particular—already have advanced strike fighters and are arming them with long-rang precision air-to-surface missiles. These forces are currently far more capable of doing critical damage to Iran’s key military and infrastructure targets than Iran’s current missile forces can inflict on the Arab Gulf states.
  • The Arab Gulf states have only limited missile capabilities, and the Saudi ballistic missile force lacks the accuracy and lethality to do more than carry out retaliatory strikes on large area targets if Iran uses its missiles to attack Arab Gulf targets.”

The Times of Israel adds further worrisome news.  Ally Russia has provided both nuclear technology and the most modern weaponry to the Tehran regime. Recently, a long-range missile system has been deployed to protect Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, a strange move to make if the plant was only being used for civilian purposes. The S-300 weapon is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-missile defensive system in the world.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Media Abandons Ethics

In analyzing presidential campaigns, a review of the quality of media reporting is vital. It’s the only practical avenue the public has to learn of the character and positions each candidate offers.

For several decades, the voters have been consistently ill-served by a biased press that, rather than fulfilling its ethical duty to objectively and accurately relay the views and qualities of those seeking office, abuses its position to further its own point of view.

While many past elections have seen inaccurate and biased coverage, this year’s combination of substantially failing to thoroughly examine the legal and ethical violations of Hillary Clinton, while reaching a frenzy of hysteria about the unusual style of Donald Trump, is in a class of its own.

Consider these two offerings from the August 29 edition of Time magazine:

From an essay by Eddie S. Claude Jr.: “…we have vomited up the likes of Donald Trump…”

The same issue contains this in a column by Joel Stein: “Old people aren’t good at voting…old people vote shortsightedly…[they are] more likely to vote for Donald Trump.”

As part of its standard and concerted effort to discredit candidates who don’t subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxy they adhere to, major media outlets have done almost everything in their power to portray the GOP candidate as an uninformed buffoon. While some explain this s a reaction to Trump’s unprecedented mode of campaigning and his politically incorrect mode of self-expression, even a cursory review of past presidential contests reveals a clear and consistent pattern of media character assassination of non-leftists contenders.
Over 30 million men in the US alone have some form of purchase cheap cialis http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/WTC-Monitoring-Program-Oct-2010.pdf ED or reduced sex drive. These stop signs are actually directing you to come to action? This medicine starts producing levitra 60 mg http://greyandgrey.com/kevin-m-plante/img_2122/ results within 1 hour. The generic formula works levitra generika probe super potential when it comes to fighting against male impotence. For the individual member to survive he has to pledge his allegiance to the organization. cheap sildenafil uk
Recall the over-the-top disdain the chattering class exhibited for George W. Bush. The hatred was so extreme that the phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined to describe it. In the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney accurately discussed the failings of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in the Benghazi incident, and was roundly excoriated for his effort.  He was also lambasted and mocked for his equally correct description of the dangers posed by Russia. Ronald Reagan, in his first run as the GOP nominee, was wildly portrayed as a fanatic in domestic affairs, and a man who was eager start World War 3. Barry Goldwater, a conservative who ran in 1964, was subjected to openly slanderous charges of being eager to initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

This year, the inaccurate diatribes against the Republican candidate have been exceptionally effective due to the aquiesence by some old-guard Republicans, who are concerned that Trump, a political outsider, will upset their leadership structure.  Rather than rise to the defense of their own party’s nominee, they have joined the biased media’s chorus. Their concern is, for their self-interest, well-founded. The GOP rank and file has been furious at the somnolent reaction by those kahunas to President Obama’s roughshod treatment of the Constitution and U.S. national security.  The overthrow of House Speaker John Boehner was a precursor to the Trump primary victory.

In their eagerness to assist in the election of their preferred candidate, open, clear violations of intrinsic Constitutional rights and basic laws concerning free and fair elections have been given short-shrift. The media has barely mentioned the extraordinary use of committed and threatened violence by some well-funded groups in blocking access to Trump events. Little critical analysis has been aired about the outrageous opposition by the Democrat National Committee to attempts to prevent fraudulent voting. Supporters of Bernie Sanders provided one bit of fair play, however, although not to the degree it deserved. Clearly, the Democrat primary process was rigged to insure Clinton’s success, from underhanded vote counting to the abuse of Democrat National Committee resources for Clinton’s benefit. The media outcry when the DNC chair was forced to resign for her unethical action—and was immediately given a position on the Clinton campaign—barely reached ho-hum levels.

The biased media has barely mentioned Clinton’s stunning failure to provide a full-fledged press conference in a vast period of time.

All of the above pales in comparison to the most significant omissions on the part of the left-wing press.  The sheer scale of Ms. Clinton’s abuse of her position, her overtly pay for play manipulation of the U.S. State Department, and her stunning personal profiteering from the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to Moscow should be non-stop headline news. Almost all of the traditional media have failed to dwell on these outrageous, in some cases Benedict-Arnold style acts, and, indeed, those who mention them are accused of partisanship. The meeting of Bill Clinton with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, followed by a statement that the Clinton camp was considering retaining her if they win, all of which led up the bizarre refusal to prosecute the Democrat candidate for extraordinary negligence in her handling of state secrets (an act which has consistently led to punishment for others) should have been the most explosive news story in decades.  It has hardly factored in the news, other than those few outlets which already were critical of her.

An important postscript: one of the few realms in which an open and vigorous exchange of viewpoints in the 2016 campaign occurs, the internet, is scheduled to be transferred from American control, which always insured free speech, to the control of an international body highly influenced by nations advocating censorship before the November election.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem of “Honest Graft,” Part 2

We conclude an insightful examination of political corruption

by the distinguished former Judge and Prosecutor, John Wilson, Esq. 

Obviously, the more a Councilman or a State Senator meet the needs of their local community organizations, the more encouraged their membership is to support them, and vote Democrat come Election Day.

There is nothing illegal, unethical, or even inappropriate about this process.  This is “honest graft,” and is how political organizations, local community groups, and the legislature have functioned for more than a century.

However, some legislators do not make legal and ethical use of their undesignated discretionary funds.  Among the 30 New York State and City officials who were convicted of “dishonest graft” are those who were convicted of using undesignated funds to pay relatives or support their businesses. An Assembly used hers to purchase a home.  Even the Speaker of the New York Assembly, and the Minority leader, were both convicted of corruption charges.

Clearly, a system which allows a politician to fund the causes of the people from whom that politician seeks support is sure to be abused.  But what is even more pervasive in the use of discretionary funds is the perfectly legal and ethical use of these funds to reward supporters of the politicians smart enough to practice “honest graft” and avoid the dishonest.

Let us take the example of something that occurs in New York City every single day.

Two Pastors have churches in an Assembly Member district.  These pastors get together and create a Community Action Group. Both go to Assembly Member Blowhard for support.  Typically, both are savvy enough to know not to say, “Support us, and we will support your bid for reelection.  We will have you come to our churches and speak from our pulpits, and invite you to our block party, and talk about you to our congregations in glowing terms.”  There is no need to make such statements – it’s understood.

The Assembly Member takes $10,000 from his discretionary fund, and gives it to the “Coming Home With Love” non-profit.  The clergy repeat the process with the local City Council Member, and the State Senator.  The City Council Member gives $5,000, and the State Senator $15,000.  Now this group has a budget of $30,000.

If the recipients are smart, they use some of that money to hold a fundraiser, and make another $20,000 after expenses.  The Assembly and City Council Members each buy a table, as does the State Senator.  Each speaks at the fundraiser, and maybe “Coming Home With Love” gives the Assembly Member Blowhard a plaque for “outstanding service to the community.”  The local news publishes a photo of the legislator receiving their plaque, which publicizes the group and the politician, and their wonderful, charitable work on behalf of the community.

With their $50,000, “Coming Home With Love” hires a staffer (usually the wife of one of them) for $20,000.  They rent space in the other Pastor’s church basement for $20,000 a year, and bring in volunteers from both parishes.  This leaves them $10,000 for their actual “work.”

But by now, you may have noticed that I never told you what exactly this group is doing.  “Outreach to the community” is one goal.  “Support services for victims of violence” is another.  “A safe space for young people.”  “A safe space for seniors.”

But what they actually do is merely open their space, and provide coffee and donuts to the few people who wander in off the street to get warm in the winter.  Maybe they publish a newsletter.  Mostly, they plan next year’s fundraiser.

The leaders have received financial support for their project.  The legislators have received support for their reelection campaigns.  And they’ve all acted legally and ethically.

Kamagra also works in the same type of mechanism as that of generic viagra woman . In general, people who have angioplasty are able to walk around within 6 hours after the meal for the consumption of viagra online . https://unica-web.com/archive/2006/jeunesse2006.html viagra purchase buy It is easy to use pumping method for ED issue. In fact, almost all men cialis pills canada experience infrequent problems of ejaculation at least once in their lives. After a couple of years, “Coming Home With Love” has received larger and large contributions from their local political leaders, and their fundraiser is an annual community event.  They honor five different “community leaders” every year, and each “leader” brings in a table or two of family and friends.  The group’s budget has swelled to over six figures a year.

Now they go to the local District Attorney, who is facing reelection.  Again, they do not have to say to her, “give us money, and we will let you speak from our pulpits, honor you at our dinner, and our church members will volunteer to help your campaign.”  Instead, they say “as part of our commitment to provide ‘outreach to the community,’ and provide a ‘safe space for young people,’ we want to open up our facility to young people with criminal charges pending, and offer them faith-based counseling services.  But we need funding!”

The District Attorney knows that he cannot use his campaign funds for this purpose.  But, his office has its own discretionary fund, designated for the use of “community outreach.”  He can authorize a $100,000 payment from this fund, and after his reelection, the District Attorney announces a “partnership” with “Coming Home With Love,” and orders his assistants to ask the Court to sentence teenage offenders to participate in the program.

Thus, for crimes such as Criminal Mischief or Petit Larceny, or even some low level Assault charges, the offender is given a sentence of a Conditional Discharge – the condition being, participation in the “Coming Home With Love” Community Outreach Program.

The “Coming Home With Love” Community Outreach Program hires two “counselors” – friends or relatives– none of whom has any degree or training in counseling.  The program also buys a cell phone for each staff member, and a computer, so these “counselors” can prepare “reports” on the “progress” of the defendants mandated by the Court to participate in their program.

And what does this “counseling” actually consist of?  Pick-up basketball games.  Gin Rummy.  Once a month, the “counselors” meet with the youths, and discuss their “goals.”

All paid for by you, the taxpayer.  This is “Honest Graft” at its finest.

I knew of a program of this nature while I sat in Brooklyn.  And I refused to sentence anyone to participate.  It didn’t make sense to me to sentence someone with a potential jail alternative to play cards and basketball for crimes such as theft and assault.

Did this refusal to play along endear me to the Brooklyn DA?  I’m sure it didn’t, but no effort was made to bring me into the fold.  There were plenty of other judges willing to cooperate, or who never thought about the connection between the District Attorney and the program.

For better or worse, this is how the political system works.  This is the system funded with your state and city taxes.  Yet at the same time, funding this system is why your taxes are so high in places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco.  While many New York politicians have veered from “honest graft” to the dishonest kind with more frequency in recent years, some level of “honest graft” has been accepted for more than one hundred years across most of our country.

Is there a solution to this problem?  There are several.  Better oversight of spending by politicians. The elimination of discretionary funding.  Continued prosecution of politicians who abuse the public doffers for their own purposes.

But in the end, regardless of whatever reforms are enacted, most political systems will always find some way to service their constituents, and trade influence.  Just like the poor, there will be “honest graft” always, so long as human beings exist.  In the real world, the trick is to find a level of back scratching and hand greasing that does not bankrupt the public coffers.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem of “Honest Graft”

We are pleased to present this article by

the distinguished former judge and prosecutor John Wilson, Esq.

George Washington Plunkitt, who served in the New York State Assembly and Senate in the late 1800’s, was the very model of a machine politician.

Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, written by a reporter who interviewed Plunkett over a series of meetings, details the method by which Plunkitt rose to power.  This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the political process, and is as current today as when it was published in 1963.

In particular, GW Plunkitt was a practitioner of “honest graft” – that is, as Plunkitt described it, acting not just in your own self-interest, but at the same time, acting in the interest of one’s political party, one’s state, and for the benefit of one’s constituents.

If you watch the news at all, you will have noticed a plethora of New York politicians being indicted by the US Attorney’s office on a regular basis.  State Senators, Assemblymen, City Council Members; all have faced prosecution on corruption allegations, and many have been convicted and incarcerated for these charges in recent years.  These are practitioners of “dishonest graft” – that is, benefiting them alone.

In fact, according to the New York Times, in the past decade, more than 30 New York City and State legislative members have been convicted of various forms of misconduct, including public corruption.

But what are these modern-day politicians doing that constitutes public corruption?  Aside from the seminal crimes of soliciting and accepting bribes, many have been convicted of the misuse of undesignated, discretionary, public funds.

What exactly are these undesignated funds?  Where do they come from?  And how are they used?

To understand what is illegal, “dishonest graft,” it is best to start with and fully describe, what is legal, “honest graft.”  Since I, like Plunkitt, am most familiar with New York, I will discuss the system employed in New York City and State.  I believe most readers will recognize, however, that there are similar systems in place in almost every jurisdiction in America.  This is particularly true if you live in a big city like Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Detroit or New Orleans.

Much of what I describe here is obviously oversimplified.  This is an effort to present an overview, not an exhaustively detailed explanation of an extremely convoluted system.  To fully present the workings of municipal government takes much more time and space than is available here.

Besides the taxes you pay to the federal government, most state governments and large city governments, collect their own taxes.  Theoretically, these taxes are collected to finance local activities – police, sanitation, fire, education, and other governmental functions.  The state or city taxing authority collects these funds, and places them at the disposal of the state or city legislature.  Most legislative bodies have a budget, and in that budget, amounts are dedicated for the use of each of these governmental departments.

Here cialis pills online cute-n-tiny.com are a few ideas to help increase one of the most basic functions in human life. The cialis generic cipla price per pill varies slightly depending on the pharmacy, but a consumer can expect to pay prices as low as $1 per pill when they are bought in sufficient quantity. So at some point in the last six months history of priapism, a painful erection that lasts for hours. on line levitra you could check here buy super viagra So always choose foods that digest easily. For instance, in 2014, the Executive Budget of the New York City Police Department was $4.678 billion dollars.  This budget was the result after a proposed budget was presented by the Police Department to the City Council, who then votes to dedicate a portion of overall tax revenue to meet this police budget.

Naturally, the original budget requested by any agency is not always the budget granted by the legislative body, but overall, this procedure for budgeting the use of tax revenue is in use all across the country.

In New York, City and State agencies are not the only entities that make budget requests.  Each New York State and City legislator also requests a budget for the maintenance of their own office.  This covers staff salaries, office supplies and typically, includes an undesignated fund – a pot of unallocated money, not designated for any specific purpose. In fact, the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, and the New York City Council, each have their own budgets, and each of their budgets also include an undesignated fund.  This fund is controlled by the leader of each of these legislative bodies, and each can distribute these funds at their discretion.  This makes the Majority leader in the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the City Council President extremely powerful.

When each member of these legislative bodies submits their budget request, that request is ultimately reviewed by the majority leader of the chamber.  For instance, a City Council member’s budget request is ultimately scrutinized by the City Council Speaker.  It should be understood that “majority leader” refers to the official elected to preside over the chamber by the party which has a majority of the legislators elected to serve in that body from a political party.

In New York, all referenced legislative bodies are currently controlled by the Democratic Party.

You can easily see where this all leads.  Assembly Member A, a Democrat, submits a budget to the Assembly, in which she asks for undesignated funds.  The Democratic majority leader, who serves as Speaker of the Assembly, views this proposal.  If Assembly Member A has been loyal to the majority party, and voted in line with the wishes of the party and the Speaker, then Assembly Member A will be generously rewarded with additional undesignated funds.  However, if Assembly Member A is a dissident, and votes in a way the Majority leader does not approve, that Assembly Member will find much of their budget request denied.

This is how a legislative leader enforces discipline.  Vote for the bill the leader wants, get funding.  Defy the leader, get nothing.  Thus, a loyal member of the majority delegation stands to get a good portion of undesignated discretionary funds for their use.

For instance, suppose former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wanted to stop an increase in the minimum wage (at the request of then-Mayor Bloomberg).  She would ask the Chairperson of the Committee considering that bill to “table it” – that is, halt consideration of the bill – in that Council Member’s Committee.  In return, that Council Member wants funds to support a day care center in their district.

The bill is tabled with no action in Committee.  A week later, the member gets a response to their funding request from the Council Speaker’s Discretionary Fund.

This quid pro quo is perfectly legal, even ethical.  But what exactly does this legislative body member do with these funds?

They fund Little League.  Senior Centers.  Community organizations.  Pretty much, they fund anything they want to.  For instance, A State Senator funded a Summer Concert Series in the local parks.  A City Council Member funded the activities of local homeowners associations.  These funds pay for gas for a community patrol vehicle, or coffee and donuts for community meetings.

“Honest Graft” concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Economy, Employment in Crisis

Despite desperate efforts to portray the economy as stable, the latest economic reports and statistics outline an ongoing crisis.

The recent indicators from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that from January 2013 through December 2015, there were 3.2 million workers displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years. This follows the 4.3 million workers for the prior survey period covering January 2011 to December 2013. In January 2016, only 66 percent of workers displaced from 2013 to 2015 were reemployed, and only 61 percent were found to be reemployed in the prior survey in January 2014.

Thirty-seven percent of long-tenured displaced workers from the 2013-15 period cited that they lost their job because their plant or company closed down or moved; an additional 37 percent said that their position or shift was abolished and 26 percent cited insufficient work. Seventeen percent of long-tenured displaced workers lost a job in manufacturing. Among long-tenured workers who were displaced from full-time wage and salary jobs and were reemployed in such jobs in January 2016, only 53 percent had earnings that were as much or greater than those of their lost job, similar to the prior.

94,391,000 Americans are not in the labor force, as the labor participation rate is at a distressingly low 62.8%, the lowest figure since 1977. CNS notes that “The best the Labor Participation rate been since Barack Obama took office is 65.8 percent in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in.” CNS also found that government employees in the United States outnumber manufacturing employees by 9,932,000. Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics  also found that Nonfarm business sector labor productivity decreased at a 0.6-percent annual rate during the second quarter of 2016. From the second quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2016, productivity decreased 0.4 percent, the first four-quarter decline in the series since a 0.6-percent decline in the second quarter of 2013.

The Institute for Supply Management  reports that: “Manufacturing contracted in August as the PMI registered 49.4 percent, a decrease of 3.2 percentage points from the July reading of 52.6 percent, indicating contraction in manufacturing…”
If one really needs to get over erectile soft generic viagra dysfunction then you won’t be able to enjoy much. Usually, men and women over 40 years of age opt for Rhytidectomy (facelift). cialis generic wholesale It is sold out in the form of tablets. tadalafil buy online In 1789, most states only allowed property owners the right to vote. buy viagra without
Bloomberg notes that “The August [employment] figure is consistent with a simmering-down of payrolls growth so far this year…The average work week for all workers decreased by 6 minutes to 34.3 hours in July, the lowest since 2014 and the first drop in six months.”

A CNBC review notes that the average work week declined 0.1 percent to 34.3 hours. That was largely because the biggest jobs gains came in bars and restaurants, which added 34,000 positions. Social assistance grew by 22,000, professional and business services added 22,000, and Wall Street-related positions grew by 15,000. Health care also contributed 14,000.

The Wall Street Journal reports that “America is now home to a vast army of jobless men who are no longer even looking for work—roughly seven million of them age 25 to 54, the traditional prime of working life.

This is arguably a crisis, but it is hardly ever discussed in the public square…In 2015 the work rate (the ratio of employment to population) for American males age 25 to 54 was 84.4%. That’s slightly lower than it had been in 1940, 86.4%, at the tail end of the Great Depression. Benchmarked against 1965, when American men were at genuine full employment, the “male jobs deficit” in 2015 would be nearly 10 million, even after taking into account an older population and more adults in college…look at the fraction of American men age 20 and older without paid work…Clearly big changes in the U.S. economy, including the decline of manufacturing and the Big Slowdown since the start of the century, have played a role. But something else is at work, too: the male flight from work has been practically linear over the past two generations, irrespective of economic conditions or recessions.  What we might call “sociological” factors are evident, not least the tremendous rise in unworking men who draw from government disability and means-tested benefit programs.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.1 percent in the second quarter of 2016, a near-recessionary figure.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Part 2: A Reverse Watershed in Latin America

 

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of national security threats in Latin America.

There is little doubt that the weaponry Moscow has chosen to provide to Nicaragua has America as its target. Nuclear bomber bases and modern tanks are certainly unnecessary in any hypothetical Central American conflict.

Nicaragua’s southern neighbor, Costa Rica, is a nation that hasn’t even had a military since 1948, and its Constitution abolished the army altogether in 1949. Each December 1, Costa Ricans celebrate this milestone on “Army Abolition Day” (Día de la Abolición del Ejército).

To the North, Honduras and El Salvador present no threat, and in fact those two nations are at loggerheads with each other, when not concentrating on fighting internal gangs.

The Nicaraguan-Russian arms saga is part of a significant downturn in Latin America, as noted recently by the Wall Street Journal.
The prostate is a very important viagra pfizer 100mg organ in the male body, which plays a very important call from work. The Kamagra pill is buying viagra uk quickly assimilated and its greatest impact seems 30 to 120 minutes after admission. These guarantee men that they can give you an alternative for http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/023-Young-Spath-Common-Core-Alignment-Slides.pdf generic viagra generic it. Like for instance cialis prices in australia or also known as a serotonin and norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) that helps to delay ejaculation during intercourse.
“Venezuela has become a Cuban satellite and holds scores of political prisoners. Pluralism hangs by a thread in Bolivia, El Salvador and Ecuador. Yet the collapse of democracy may be most poignant in Nicaragua, which fought back against the Communist Sandinistas during the Cold War only to see them return with a vengeance amid U.S. indifference. Last month Sandinista President Daniel Ortega purged Nicaragua’s opposition from Parliament. In November he will run for a third five-year term with his wife, Rosario Murillo, as his vice-presidential candidate. …Readers may recall how Mr. Ortega led the Sandinista revolution…1979 with the help of the Soviet Union. He moved quickly to establish a Communist beachhead in Central America. This spawned the grass-roots Nicaraguan resistance. The Sandinistas accepted defeat but refused to surrender their weapons or their judiciary seats. The “commandantes” of the revolution had enriched themselves by confiscating property in what was known as “the piñata,” and many Nicaraguan property owners have never been compensated.Mr. Ortega has returned to power by exploiting democratic rules and then changing them once in power. …All of this has happened with nary a peep from the Obama Administration. Contrast that with the way the White House aggressively mobilized Latin American governments in 2009 when Honduras used constitutional means to remove a law-breaking president and then insisted that new elections be held on schedule. Latin Americans have noticed the U.S. double standard, and Nicaraguans are paying the price.”

The America’s Report has linked Ortega to Iran “Iran has been making inroads into Latin America for some time, especially in countries with strong Chavista influence, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and dangerously Nicaragua, which is very close in distance to the US…The problem is that if Ortega perpetuates himself in power, the United States’ and the region’s national security could suffer a serious blow. We have to consider that Iran has already used Hezbollah to attack what it considers enemies in Latin America, when they blew up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the early -90’s killing and wounding hundreds…When Ortega became President of Nicaragua in 2007, Ahmadinejad considered his ascension so important that he was in Managua to attend the inauguration. Ortega even honored Ahmadinejad with two of the country’s most prestigious awards (the Liberty Medal and the Rubén Darío Medal). The two heads of state then toured shantytowns in Managua and Ortega told the press that the “revolutions of Iran and Nicaragua are almost twin revolutions…since both revolutions are about justice, liberty, self-determination, and the struggle against imperialism…What are all those Iranian diplomats doing in Nicaragua? …What is becoming dangerous is that Nicaragua is providing a safe place where Iran can send Revolutionary Guards and move them in and around the region. It is clear that the Iranians are allowed to come and go as they wish and there is no surveillance by the Nicaraguan regime. It is not far fetched to think that the embassy and the mosque could be used to store weapons and to develop and execute plans to attack American interests. What is certain is that urgent vigilance is required.”

Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency reports that Iran’s Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi has plans to deploy warships in Latin American.” Iran has been seeking to broaden ties and cooperation with Latin American states, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Mexico and Colombia.

The ramifications of the White House’s timidity have ramifications across the globe, as anxious allies take note of an America that fails to guard against rising threats even within striking distance of its own borders.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Reverse Watershed in Latin America

 

The New York Analysis begins a two-part review of the

deteriorating national security outlook in Latin America

A “Reverse watershed” may be in the making in Central America.

In the late 1980’s President Ronald Reagan successfully demanded that the Soviet Union cancel plans to place advanced military equipment in Nicaragua. His stance against Russian advances in Central America was rooted in a U.S. policy that extended as far back as the Monroe Doctrine.

His willingness to face down the expansion of Soviet military influence, combined with his arms buildup, was a vital component in the downfall of the U.S.S.R., one of the true turning points in the Cold War.

Thirty years later, the unwillingness of the Obama Administration to stand firm against Moscow’s current moves to place landing facilities for nuclear bombers and a spy station in Nicaragua, along with plans to place other heavy military equipment in the country, indicates that Washington’s current leadership lacks the courage or concern to confront aggressive nations, and is unwilling to face threats even within its own hemisphere.

It is important to find the midwayfire.com sildenafil cheapest root of your issue and work through how to get around it. Ladies and children viagra samples http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Approved-Minutes-7-11-17.pdf should probably never consider this drug. viagra from canada pharmacy Osteopaths are aware that the body structure dysfunction has an effect on 10-25% of middle-aged along with aged guys. It is just like the women that do not put off referring with wholesale sildenafil midwayfire.com a powerful Acupuncture NYC specialized and looking answer to the condition. Russia’s Sputnik News notes that Nicaragua’s military training center was “constructed with Russia’s assistance and named after the legendary WW2 hero, Soviet Marshal Zhukov.”

The McClatchy news service reports that “Russia is rekindling its once-strong ties to Nicaragua, possibly including providing the Central American nation with jet fighters, stoking unease as far away as the Andes in South America…The chief spokesman for the Sandinista Front on international matters…said Nicaragua’s relations with Russia have taken a ‘qualitative leap’…Former Sandinista President Daniel Ortega won elections and returned to power in 2007…Nicaragua’s neighbors recoiled. ‘One doesn’t combat drug trafficking with that kind of heavy military equipment for fighting wars,” Costa Rican Foreign Minister Manuel González said …”

The U.S. Naval Institute  revealed in May that “In late April Russia shipped the first 20 of 50 T-72B tanks ordered by Nicaragua.The cost of the 50 tanks reportedly totals $80 million. That is $9 million more than Nicaragua’s total 2015 defense budget. The acquisition of tanks is particularly perplexing to many in the region since Nicaragua has relatively good relations with its neighbors…This puzzling move turns out to be one of several in recent years in which Russia has provided foreign assistance and weapons sales to their old allies in the ruling FSLN party under President Daniel Ortega…These echoes of the Cold War beg the question—why? It does not appear to be domestic politics, or some ambitious plan of the Nicaraguan government; rather, it is more likely driven by Putin’s desire to create mischief in America’s sphere of influence at a low cost…”

The Center for Security Policy calls Russia in Latin America “The problem we have chosen to ignore…Russian activities closer to home in the Western Hemisphere have been largely overlooked or perhaps just disregarded. There have been reports of  increasing Russian  military cooperation with countries in Latin America that are hostile to the United States, mainly Cuba, Venezuela, and  Nicaragua.  This includes agreements between Russia and the above named countries that would enable Russia to place their naval logistic facilities in Venezuelan, Cuban and Nicaraguan territory. According to Russia’s Secretary of Defense, those facilities could serve long-range aircraft. The motive, according to Russia expert, Stephen Blank is that Russia seeks access to ports and air bases for refueling purposes as well as  great power influence… As the United States abandons its desire to be involved in international affairs, Russia and China aspire to increase their influence in areas of the world that have traditionally been part of the U.S. sphere of cultural and political influence. Simultaneously, Iran cultivates its own political alliances and terrorist networks in the region. The Bolivarian Alliance is a threat to democracy and stability in the region. Russia, China and Iran will do anything to reinforce these regimes.”

Moscow has not been shy about its Latin American involvement. In 2015, Pravda   reported “Russia and Cuba agreed to train Cuban specialists in Russia. This is a very important aspect, as it means the technical and mental attachment of the armed forces of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela to Russia. This marks a return to the Soviet system of allied military cooperation between Russia and Latin America. This long-term strategy imposes obligations on Russia to supply its allies in Latin America with advanced weapons, including air defense systems, aircraft and warships. Such issues were discussed in Nicaragua, Pravda.Ru wrote with reference to defensa.com website. ‘Moscow will begin shipping patrol gunboats in Managua during the second half of 2016 as part of the package that Russia offered Nicaragua last year.’ Furthermore, if we sell or have plans to sell S-300 and S-400 systems to Beijing and Tehran, why not selling them to Managua, Caracas and Havana?… Through the territory of Nicaragua, it is planned to build a new canal parallel to Panama Canal. In this case, vessels of the Russian fleet will be able to enter the Gulf of Mexico, that is exit the Pacific Ocean to enter the Atlantic. This is highly important, because in this case, Russia will be able to ensure so-called nuclear deterrence, because the Russian navy has long-range cruise missiles. If such Russian vessels are deployed somewhere near the territory of Cuba, they will be able to attack the United States.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

NY Analysis Reviews the “Obama Doctrine”

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government has published a There is no such food limitation when you take tadalafil buy cheap . So, a regular consumption of Pomegranate juices helps in preventing the buildup of arterial plaque thereby http://deeprootsmag.org/page/46/ viagra cost india resulting in much improved blood circulation and not only to the heart but to all the organs including penis. These are referred to generic viagra 100mg as ‘career derailers’. Correct? Why is it that the term, ‘impotency’ is viagra price canada taken as such a taboo. review of the Obama Doctrine.  The report is reproduced, below.

Categories
NY Analysis

Collapse of the Obama Doctrine

Far beyond any precedent in American history, President Obama’s foreign and defense policies have utterly collapsed, severely endangering both the United States and its allies to a degree never anticipated.

The Obama doctrine, which can be described as a unilateral drawdown of U.S. military capabilities, reduced American presence worldwide, acceptance of questionable international agreements, and subordinating Washington’s global role to international organizations or other powers, has not only failed to yield positive results, it has increased the risk of wars large and small worldwide, allowed terrorism to expand exponentially, and jeopardized the lives of U.S. citizens.

To a unique and extensive degree, Mr. Obama has acted on his own, leaving out Congress, the American people, and according to some reports some of his own advisors in his decision-making process. Indeed, throughout his two terms in office, the President has failed to provide a thorough and candid statement of either his worldview or his national security goals.

The hallmarks of the Obama Doctrine include:

Missteps in defense planning.  Examples include the President’s opposition to a defense budget based on real threats, not politics. He also sponsored an arms control agreement, the New Start Treaty, that allowed Russia to gain the lead in nuclear weapons. In a Newsmax interview, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is “the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do.”

Middle Eastern withdrawal, and a failure to forcefully confront terrorism. The President ordered a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, allowing ISIS to thrive.

Mr. Obama also took a very vocal role in supporting “Arab Spring” movements, which perhaps unintentionally, allowed Islamic terrorists to gain more influence in Middle Eastern governments.  Curiously, however, there was one such movement he pointedly refused to encourage: The “Green Revolution” in Iran, which would have brought more moderates into Iran’s hard-core anti-American regime. No rational explanation has ever been provided by the White House as to why it supported such movements in nations such as Egypt, while the Green Revolution in Iran was ignored.

The Investigative Project on Terror  reports that “Deaths from jihadist assaults rose from an annual average of roughly 2,500 innocents per year from 2001 to 2006, to an average of 3,300 per year in 2007-2011, to 9,000 per year in 2012-2013 and to an average of more than 28,000 in 2014-2015…Today ISIS claims two caliphates – one the size of Indiana in Iraq and Syria and the other along the Mediterranean coast in Libya – from which to expand its genocidal influence in the Middle East and Africa. Large areas of the African continent experienced tremendous mass slaughter from Islamist terror in recent years, led by ISIS affiliate Boko Haram.”

A key area where the President, contrary to his inclination to disengage in the Middle East, has intervened resulted in a negative outcome. Inexplicably, Mr. Obama committed American forces to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, who had renounced his own nuclear program and terrorist past and was now on the same side as the West in the fight against al-Qaeda. Gaddafi’s elimination left Libya in chaos, allowing Islamic terrorists to thrive there. The destruction of the American facility in Benghazi and the murder of the American ambassador and his staff were a direct result.

A gap of 24 hours is compulsory between generic online viagra 2 doses and consumption of below that period can give an unhealthy reason of inviting health ill effects. It’s as easy devensec.com cheapest cialis as that. Here, the term completing the intercourse is denoting the importance of logistics, many online retailers have set up their own companies canadian cialis no prescription or are moving in this direction instead of hiring third – party logistics warehouse services and international freight shipping companies. By a recent survey in 2003 named as Massachusetts Male aging study, it has been said that after the regular usage of these pills man does not have to follow the custom for his whole life, but this should be continued only for the recommended three months and after that women tend to enjoy the cheap tadalafil uk course more likely than before its usage. In a departure from America’s long-standing doctrine of not negotiating with terrorists, President Obama opened discussions with Afghanistan’s Taliban, and later and combined it with an announced departure date of American forces from Afghanistan. (The Wilson Center reports “in recent months, the Taliban has intensified its insurgency in Afghanistan. It now holds more territory than at any time since 2001. Civilian casualties reached record levels in 2015, and scores of Afghans are fleeing the country.”)

A failure to back U.S. allies and friends when attacked or threatened. The bizarre lack of a response by the Obama Administration to the Chinese invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone off the shores of the long-term U.S. ally set a detrimental precedent. Washington failed to even lodge a substantial diplomatic protest, despite the clear violation of international law. China clearly became emboldened by this, and has increased its aggressiveness ever since.   Spacewar reports that Philippine President Aquino fears “the Philippines could lose control of its entire west coast should China succeed in enforcing its [illegal] claims.”

Israeli relations provide another clear example. Despite existential threats to that nation’s existence from Iranian missile developments, Mr. Obama has taken no steps in response to Tehran’s missile program, which has included test launches with rockets bearing “death to Israel” logos (The BBC reports that Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said “anyone who thinks negotiations are more important than building a missile system are traitors.”)

Unilateral and severe limits on anti-ballistic missile defenses. Russia has modernized its best-in-the world nuclear arsenal, China has become a major nuclear power, and then there is North Korea.  The Free Beacon reports that “North Korea has developed a new long-range mobile intercontinental ballistic missile that the Pentagon says moves the country’s leader Kim Jong Un closer to the goal of building missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland with nuclear warheads.” Despite this, the President’s long-standing opposition to adequate missile defenses continues.

Ignoring the increased military presence of Russia, China, and Iran in the Americas. The President has demonstrated remarkably little concern for truly worrisome military developments in the Americas.  The Castro government’s agreement to allow the Russian Navy to return to Cuban ports didn’t impact the White House decision to establish diplomatic relations with Havana—less than a month after the Cuban-Russian agreement was reached!  No response has been made to Nicaragua’s allowing Moscow’s nuclear bombers to refuel in their air facilities in order to continue threatening atomic patrols off U.S. coastlines. No substantive response has been made to the presence of Iran’s Hezbollah forces in Latin America, or China’s growing relationship with Caribbean and South American militaries.

Missteps Recognized, But Not Corrected

The latest reports, that a limited number of troops and heavy equipment will be returned to Europe following the President’s unexplained withdrawal of U.S. tanks several years ago, came shortly after the news that U.S. ground troops have been sent back to the Middle East. Mr. Obama’s earlier withdrawal of tanks from Europe and his withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East (leaving no insurance units behind had belatedly recognized disastrous consequences.)

The lack of any credible western deterrent in Europe, combined with the President’s acquiescence in the Kremlin’s first-ever lead in nuclear arms (as a result of his agreement to the 2009 nuclear arms treaty) gave Moscow an additional assurance that its invasion of Ukraine, its threats against former Soviet satellites, and its dramatic and vast military arms buildup, would result in any substantial consequences. The already diminished amount of American troops in Europe, down to 65,000 from a prior high of about 200,000, was already an indication of U.S. goodwill.  What was the purpose of the tank withdrawal? Why was there no statement from the White House concerning its extraordinary and unilateral withdrawal of American armored forces? It should also be noted that Mr. Obama has also sought to close down the only facility in the U.S. that manufactures tanks, at a time when U.S. armor is over-aged, American manufacturing employment is in crisis and Russia is developing exceptionally advanced and powerful new armored vehicles.

The dire necessity which mandated the very limited return of previously withdrawn U.S. forces to Europe and Iraq, (although in numbers which suggest more a publicity stunt than a substantive military move) both tacit admissions of the Administration’s policy failures in those regions, should have been taken as a lesson by the President.  But in his recent actions towards Cuba, his failure to confront the growing military presence of Russia, China, and terrorist forces in the Americas, and his continuing failure to significantly prepare for the very real threats facing the United States from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, indicate that no such lesson was learned.

That inability by the President and the two Secretaries of State under his tenure to respond to the obvious failure of their foreign and defense policies indicates either an inability to acknowledge a reality that differs from their ideology, or an adherence to a worldview that the vast majority of Americans find both dangerous and abhorrent.