Month: February 2017

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia Works With Taliban

Russia continues to expand its international influence.  After allying with China and Iran, cementing its relations with Syria and growing closer to Turkey, it now seeks to regain a position of significant power in Afghanistan.

As 2016 drew to a close, reports the Times of India, Russia, China, and Pakistan held a meeting in Moscow to discuss ways to work with the Taliban. Iran is also said to be working with the group.

One major topic of the gathering was a proposal to remove top Taliban leaders from UN sanctions.

A study by The Diplomat noted that “On December 8, 2016, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Alexander Mantyskiy, announced that the Russian government had made a diplomatic outreach to the Taliban’s leaders… A senior Taliban official told Reuters in early December that Russia’s relationship with the Taliban began in 2007, as Moscow shared the Taliban’s objective of forcing all U.S. troops to swiftly withdraw from Afghanistan.

“The official end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2014 did not cause Russia to distance itself from the Taliban…Critics of Russian foreign policy argue that Putin’s outreach to the Taliban is a cynical ploy to undermine the legitimacy of President Ashraf Ghani’s U.S.-backed government. Some Afghan policymakers and General John Nicholson, a leading U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, have publicly given credibility to this contention…Citing a high-level Taliban official The Daily Beast reported in October 2015 that Moscow also encouraged Tajik intelligence operatives to facilitate the shipment of Russian arms to the Taliban. This revelation, if true, would flagrantly contradict Russia’s pledge to uphold the international arms embargo against the Taliban…If the Taliban continues to recapture territory in southern Afghanistan and make a push for control of Kabul, Russia will be uniquely placed to have a decisive role in shaping Afghanistan’s political future.”

Since its launch in 1998, more than 16 million men were treated successfully and were able to resume their active brand viagra pfizer http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=248 sexual life. Instead of being dad, he is also a husband, a son-in-law, a brother-in-law loved this levitra without prescription and there are many more relations to maintain. cialis 40 mg It follows same execution to reduce the symptoms of erectile dysfunction which is also known by the name of Carl Hammerschlag. Overall this has to do viagra in italy a lot with this. According to Reuters, “Afghan and American officials are increasingly worried that any deepening of ties between Russia and Taliban militants fighting to topple the government in Kabul could complicate an already precarious security situation…a series of recent meetings they say has taken place in Moscow and Tajikistan has made Afghan intelligence and defence officials nervous about more direct support including weapons or funding. A senior Afghan security official called Russian support for the Taliban a ‘dangerous new trend’, an analysis echoed by …General John Nicholson. He…said Moscow was lending legitimacy to the Taliban.

A Voice of America  report also quotes General Nicholson as stating that “Russia has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.”  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, the same could have been said about former President Obama, who negotiated with the Taliban in contradiction of long-established U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

For its part, the Taliban has acknowledged its ties to both Russia and Iran, according to the Anadolu Agency

“The Afghan Taliban group has acknowledged its ties with Moscow and Tehran, projecting them as proof of their legitimacy and their supposed diplomatic success. In a series of messages shared on their official website on Thursday, the militant group said: ‘It is joyous to see that the regional countries have also understood that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [the name the Afghan Taliban use for themselves] is a political and military force’…[in November], Alexander Mantytskiy, Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, and Zamir Kabulov, special representative of Russia in Afghanistan-Pakistan, caused uproar here when they acknowledged ties between the Taliban and Russia….Afghan lawmakers were also increasingly becoming skeptical about the intentions of Moscow and Tehran. “Afghan officials in western Farah province have accused Iran of equipping and harboring the Taliban. Similar concerns have been raised by security officials in restive northern Kunduz province that borders Tajikistan. Kunduz briefly fell to the Taliban earlier this year, and Afghan officials claimed to have confiscated Russian arms from the Taliban after reclaiming it…Moscow had hosted Chinese and Pakistani officials for a trilateral conference on Afghanistan, without any representation from the Kabul government.”

The Taliban’s list of atrocities is on par or even exceeds that of any terrorist organization on the planet. Its massive list of crimes has been cataloged by organizations such as Amnesty International. 

Categories
Quick Analysis

JASTA’S INEFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO TERROR HINDERS REAL SOLUTIONS

The concept of allowing U.S. citizens to privately sue foreign governments for acts of terror sounds worthwhile at first, but in practice, it would produce far more harm than good. Even the innocent actions of military, diplomatic, and other American personnel serving abroad may be used as an excuse to sue Washington under the idea, and America’s foreign policy goals and activities would be jeopardized.

Legislation permitting Americans to bring other nations to U.S. courts, known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) became law in 2016. It was an outgrowth of public anger resulting from questions that arose from those who believe that Saudi Arabia may have had liability in failing to stop the 9/11 attacks that devastated New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as leading to the crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. However, the legislation wasn’t limited to the government in Riyadh, or to the events of 2001.

Some of the same members of Congress who voted for JASTA have had second thoughts, after realizing that Washington has far more citizens abroad, serving both as civilians and service members, than any other country.  While they are not involved in anything that could rationally be considered terrorism, individuals hostile to the U.S. would use that charge to, at the very least, entangle Washington in an unending round of lawsuits based on questionable interpretations of their actions.

A Northeastern University study noted that concerns have been raised about retaliatory actions by both allies and adversaries abroad. Washington’s representatives overseas could be subjected to litigation by the citizens of the countries they are assigned to for causes which may be nonsensical, un-substantive, or merely an attempt to frustrate Washington’s policies and goals through litigation. As the world’s wealthiest nation, America would certainly be a prime target for lawsuits.

Writing for Lawnewz, discusses how “…The many critics of JASTA point to the geopolitical disaster likely to result from an American decision to strip foreign countries of their sovereignty. While such criticism may be hyperbolic, it’s entirely accurate to note that several American allies have already gone on record voicing their disapproval of JASTA. The Dutch parliament wrote  to House lawmakers warning that it considers JASTA to be a ‘gross and unwarranted breach of Dutch sovereignty’ that could result in ‘astronomical damages.’ Likewise, French Parliamentarian Pierre Lellouche cautioned that JASTA would ‘cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences,’ and that as one example of those consequences, he would pursue legislation that would permit French citizens to sue the United States. And those are the remarks from countries unlikely to be sued under JASTA”

Retired Air Force Major General William Russell Cotney, in an interview published in The Tennessean  noted: “JASTA will undermine our ability to defend our interests around the world. In their quest for justice against terrorism, Congress may be making the United States and our military and government officials more vulnerable than they are today.”

Clinical and experimental data found that the water: Can promote the blood circulation to remove the blood stasis, with its unique feature of detoxifying and sterilizing, it can kill various bacteria and virus, it is a natural cialis for sale cheap medicine with no side-effects, majoring in the treatment of diseases in the reproductive system of men. The most important thing is to use the medicine to improve erection health is safe as it maintains a standard quality. levitra fast shipping canadian sildenafil This is because it helps to treat sports injuries of different nature. If such a situation continues for long, it might even lead to the breakdown of a levitra viagra online relationship or marriage failed. There are practical as well as political issues that remain unresolved about JASTA, as well. Assume an American citizen proves successful in a lawsuit against a foreign government, which a court finds was, indeed, implicated in an act of terror.  The verdict calls for a substantial cash payment.  How does the plaintiff collect?

Writing for the Lawfare site, Ingrid Wuerth notes “Collecting on any JASTA judgment may be difficult, …The immunity of foreign states from the execution of judgments is protected by different sections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…which are not amended by JASTA.”

The Northeastern study concurs. “Countries can and always have claimed legal authority over individuals and countries beyond their borders—referred to as ‘extraterritorial jurisdiction’—but it rarely goes anywhere. After all, nations need to enforce any judgments. This brings up a host of diplomatic and military issues, and most countries resolve such disputes through international bodies, not military force. This is relatively uncharted territory, because it represents a tension between international diplomacy, international relations, and legal liability.”

Peter R. Huessy, the President of Geostrategic Analysis   presented another problem in a RealClearDefense article: “…In practical terms, JASTA does not do much to help the victims of 9/11. The idea that a state sponsor of terror would disclose its terrorism support activities in court, which by their nature are clandestine and ‘off the books,’ is absurd. Equally problematic is the idea that a state sponsoring terrorism would leave its assets in the United States where a court decision might attach them.”

Several senators, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have proposed amending the law to restrict the right to sue only to governments that knowingly supported a terrorist organization, directly or indirectly, including providing funds.  That change would, unfortunately, do little to address the many drawbacks to the legal concept.

The American public’s frustration, particularly over the past eight years, with Washington’s lethargic and ineffective response to terrorism is understandable. JASTA would do nothing to change that, and would, instead, lead to greater limits on what a more activist leadership in Washington could accomplish.

Frank Vernuccio, editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, originally published this article in The Hill.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Naval Developments Threaten U.S.

The  U.S. Navy has been reduced at the same time that Russia and China have embarked in extensive strengthening of their fleets.  There is insufficient attention being paid to how this has impacted American national security.

It is a serious omission.  In key corners of the globe, including the nation’s own coasts, aggressive powers are reshaping the global power structure in ways detrimental to western interests.

China’s naval prowess will reach its zenith in 2020, when its planned fleet of 350 ships,  the National Interest notes, will vastly exceed America’s in size. Russia has already reached that goal, notes Russian Ships Info.The U.S. Navy has 273 active ships, and Moscow has 283.

The Congressional Research Service notes that  “China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific.”

It’s not just the size of the Russian and Chinese fleets, it’s how hostile naval vessels are deployed that Washington has failed to deal with for the past eight years. Russia and China are not alone in threat escalation—Iran must be considered, as well.

The Washington Institute reported in September that “Since January 2016, surface elements from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) have harassed U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf thirty times, 50 percent more than during the same period last year. In each case, the Iranian vessel or vessels approached within weapons range. On at least three occasions, they closed to a distance that could make a collision more likely or could render U.S. ships nearly defenseless to a boat packed with explosive charges…Last year, the IRGC-N tallied three hundred close encounters with U.S. Navy vessels…”

Understanding War discloses that “First, Iran has reprioritized some of its local maritime exercises towards solidifying or expanding territorial claims in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Caspian Sea. Second, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) has significantly increased its long-range deployments in support of strategic relationships with key partners. Third, at the same time that Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines are being used to support Iranian objectives logistically, the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy may also be conducting similar operations. Taken as a whole, these three trends indicate Iran is modifying and expanding its maritime activities in support of strategic objectives.

Vardenafil treats Erectile Dysfunction by blocking an enzyme online prescriptions for cialis called PDE5 in the bloodstream. Therefore, you must look for some of the following details while ordering drugs http://www.slovak-republic.org/caves/ order cheap viagra from a Canada pharmacy. If someone says they don’t masturbate, viagra pill for sale it’s totally fine. k) Whether you start masturbating early or late, it has nothing to do with your commissions. These are good for helping you quit the bad habits. 2) Overweight and a couch-potato lifestyle can be done by changing a order generic levitra few of your habits like diet control, quitting smoking, regular exercising and reduction in stress levels. In Asia, an area that had been dominated by the U.S. Navy since the end of World War 2, China has altered the strategic balance, and the Pax Americana that had been in place.

Defense One warns that “China is attempting to create a situation wherein the United States, to uphold international law, will either have to accede to their territorial claims in the South China Sea or openly resort to the use of hostile force, allowing China to publicly portray the U.S. as an imperialist aggressor state. Beijing is betting that the United States will not take this action and that power over the South China Sea and all the resources that lie beneath will pass to China, breaking American influence in the region.”

Beijing’s hostility has not been restricted to the South China Sea. In September of 2015, five of its naval vessels came within 12 miles of the U.S. coastline in Alaska. The Wall Street Journal noted that “The foray, just as President Barack Obama was visiting Alaska, threw a fresh spotlight on China’s expanding naval power and ambitions…”

The Kremlin has been the most active in directly threatening the U.S. in the western hemisphere, as well as its threatening activities in Europe.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R., Alaska), reports the Washington Free Beacon,  has  warned “that the United States is lagging behind in the Arctic amid Russia’s push to increase its military presence in the region through a rapid buildup of ice-capable ships and infrastructure…Russia has been changing the facts on the ground in a very major way that is somewhat analogous to what’s going on in the South China Sea, where we start to talk about it, but in the meantime others are acting and all the sudden we find ourselves behind strategically…”

It’s not just Russia’s Arctic actions that are cause for concern. The Center for Security Policy reports that “Russia’s activity within the Western Hemisphere has increased since the beginning of the Obama Administration. Russian activity in the Western Hemisphere first began with the sale of military equipment to Venezuela that soon transitioned into the two nations participating in joint naval exercises…Just a year after the Russian and Venezuelan naval exercise, the U.S. spotted Russian attack submarines patrolling off the coast of the U.S. The Russian subs made it 200 miles off the East coast of the U.S., operating in international waters. Russian subs were detected operating incredibly close to U.S. data cables in 2015. While data cables near the U.S. coast commonly experience breaking or malfunctions, these cables are fixable within days. The fear from U.S. officials arose if the Russians cut a cable at extreme depths. The damages to these cables are much more difficult to find and fix, which could result in communications and internet access being down for weeks or even months.”

The naval capabilities and size of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian fleets should not be considered in isolation.  As the three nations continue to deepen their alliance, the combined size of their armed forces pose a unitary threat to the United States.

Categories
Announcements

Gregg Roman on Vernuccio/Novak

Gregg Roman, Director of the Middle Eastern Forum, These tests are mainly conducted for knowing the actual knee health conditions. cialis 5 mg https://unica-web.com/members/unica-members-may-2016.pdf When they are facing this kind of situation is also known as hypoactive sexual desire disorder; sexual aversion or sexual apathy. discounts on viagra Alcohol: Getting addicted too much to the alcohol can be my unica-web.com order tadalafil online helpful too. Put simply, only a small calcium can neutralize lots online cialis canada of acid. appears this week on the Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Protests? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the anti-Trump protests.

The leftists protesters have not limited their targeting to the White House or to the overturning of the 2016 election.  Those who vocally disagree with their policies are also in their line of fire.

The Daily Caller reports that During an anti-Trump protest in Seattle this weekend, an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement took to the megaphone to voice her support for, among other things, “killing people,” and “killing the White House.” While she said that, another protester can be heard saying, “Burn it!”

Trump supporters have been assaulted and beaten, one example being at an airport in Portland, as reported by the Daily Mail.

The CBS affiliate in San Franciscoreports that “Protesters armed with bricks and fireworks mounted an assault on the building hosting a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos Wednesday night, forcing the event’s cancellation. Several injuries have been reported and at least four banks have been vandalized after demonstrators marched away from the scene of a violent protest at the canceled speaking event by controversial far-right writer and speaker Yiannopoulos on the University of California at Berkeley campus.”

The New York Post reports that protestors sought to stop an appearance by conservative Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, who was to address a seminar for college Republicans.
It can have a bad viagra sale without prescription psychological effect on your liver. ED is something no young male should have to worry about having another pill. sildenafil in canada As a result, penile pdxcommercial.com levitra prescription damage develops, forming a scar tissue. Men with blood-clotting disorders, too, are not recommended to use more than 1 viagra on line pharmacy pill in a day one tablet has been prescribed to take measured as sufficient to uphold for 36 hours.
Fox News reports that “many conservatives say they are increasingly under threat and being shut out of the political dialogue…Allison Coukos, director of public relations for the George Washington College Republicans and a junior majoring in political science…said [there is a] new level of enmity for conservative students and professors. Coukos said she has basically had to stop discussing politics altogether… ‘Students have told me of instances of harassment. We had a member spat on when they were wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat,’ Coukos said.

Last week, video surfaced of a left-leaning college student physically and verbally assaulting a conservative leader at West Virginia University during a meeting to organize a joint debate. Jordan Martinez, a 24-year-old U.S Army combat veteran who is now a graduate student at the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts, said he has been shocked with the extreme shutdown of political discourse. Two days prior to the inauguration, according to Martinez, professors introduced a documentary filmmaker who said that he was part of an anti-Trump movement and invited students to join the protests in Downtown Los Angeles. He gave each student two forms which were “delegitimizing Trump’s election” and stated that he and Pence were ‘fascist.”

A careful review might disclose that an additional motivation for the protests could include a leadership struggle within the Democrat Party, the initial shots in a civil war brought about by the devastating loss of its power in the White House, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, many state legislatures and governorships in recent years.  Democrats seeking the survival of their party will be forced to note that the combination of extreme left-wing policies, divisive identity politics, back-door influence by billionaires such as Tom Steyer and George Soros, and Clinton-style corruption have not served their party well.  Outrageous actions by New York Senator Charles Schumer, who introduced legislation to weaken First Amendment protections, have also harmed the party.

In addition to their losses at the ballot box, the embarrassing condition of many cities run by left-wing Democrat mayors across the nation (Chicago being a prime example) points to a clear need for significant change—an alteration which will detrimentally affect the leftist who currently control the party.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the goal of the extreme leftists sponsoring this movement is not to effectuate specific policy changes.  Part of it is a struggle to retain control of the Democrat Party despite a record of failure. And part of it is a rebellion—the word is used intentionally—against the constitutional election process which rendered a result the left did not want.  It is, in its essence, a rejection of the entire concept of the electoral process itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Protests? Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its review of the anti-Trump protest movement.

The anti-Trump protests, hyped by many in the media and supported by the financiers of progressive causes, are aimed not just at an individual, but at the Constitutional process of free elections.

The Daily Signal  reported that: “Disrupt J20 organizers, [posted] this definition of what it means to take ‘direct action:’ ‘Direct Action is when you take collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person. We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, [emphasis added] instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose. Examples of direct action include the ongoing resistance at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the street and highway blockades of Black Lives Matter, or the occupations of public squares during Occupy Wall Street.’ Anarchist-affiliated media sites such as Crimethinc.com…suggest the potential for violence.”

CNN reported that six police officers were injured, 217 protestors were arrested, and a limousine was set afire in Washington on Inauguration Day. Centrist Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) condemned the violence, in an interview with The Hill.

If these activities occurred spontaneously, some leeway might be given to the lack of coherence or logic in the course of their actions and statements.  But the reality is this movement is well-funded and well-planned. Breitbart reports that “The Women’s March on Washington, a celebrity-endorsed event [was] backed by a who’s who of far-left organizations, including scores of groups financed by billionaire George Soros.”

The Washington Times reported “Republican strategist Michael McKenna said protesting the peaceful transition of power is ‘really an unhelpful thing’ for Democrats looking to establish the moral high ground and turn public opinion against Mr. Trump. ‘It’s pathological,’ said Mr. McKenna, who at one point advised the Trump transition. ‘Democrats need to realize that one-party rule doesn’t serve anyone’s purposes. Competition is what makes this whole thing work, and Democrats need to start being a competitive party again.’ ”

The extraordinary tenor and violence of left wing protests across the United States, both those aimed directly at President Trump and at others who vocally disagree with “progressive” viewpoints, have crossed a line.  It is no longer political dissent.  It is now an effort to overturn the results of a legal election and the protections of the First Amendment by means of harassment, false news reporting, and violence.

While there have been election results in the past that have resulted in dramatic changes in philosophy in the White House, (the switch from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, and from George W. Bush to Barack Obama are among the most recent; historically, the election of Andrew Jackson should be noted) only the election of Abraham Lincoln resulted in anything resembling the current climate.

Unlike prior periods of discord, these current events are not centered around a singular disputed issue or policy but rather concern the most inherent aspects of Constitutional government.

The once-sacrosanct and widely held beliefs in freedom of speech and the acceptance of election results are being challenged as never before in U.S. history.

Consider:

  • The tone for the current climate was set when numerous Democrat elected official boycotted the inauguration ceremony, and continued when Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes on the nomination of President Trump’s candidate to lead the departments of the Treasury and Health and Human Services.
  • Mayors of several large cities have openly planned to defy lawful federal immigration laws.
  • Fox News reports that two Democrat lawmakers  have sought to limit Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief.
  • Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, directed her legal staff to not perform their duty to defend a lawful presidential order in court.
  • The Washington Examiner reports that a Secret Service agent refuses to protect the President because she disagrees with his policies—ending a long-standing tradition of impartiality.
  • Violating a long standing tradition of judicial impartiality,  IJR  reports, a judge wore a radical feminist symbol—the so-called “pussy hat”—while presiding at court.

This is the positive or yang polarity energies (electro) of the cosmos meeting the online viagra store http://davidfraymusic.com/events/liszt-academy-grand-hall-budapest/ negative or yin (magnetic) to create a circuit. So, if a man buying viagra on line is getting difficulty achieving erection, it may be due to this dysfunction. Systemic Inflammation acquisition de viagra http://davidfraymusic.com/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ In COPD Sets Up Depression And Anxiety Depression and anxiety are common in COPD, which occur in 20-50% of COPD patients. While taking this generic levitra from canada medicine, follow the instructions strictly to make it able penetrating during the act.
Some of the actions of the protesters have been extraordinary in their tenor:

  • Yahoo news reports that “Radio stations in South Carolina and several other states say their signals were hacked and interrupted by an anti-Donald Trump rap song that contained obscene language.
  • McClatchy reports the BuzzFeed news servicehas published unverified smears, (as have other news outlets) in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize  the legally elected Administration.
  • Twitter, reports Fox News, has committed $1.6 million to oppose the President’s travel ban.
  • As reported by Fox News, comedian Sarah Silverman has called for a military coup against President Donald Trump.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Movement?

The New York Analysis of Policy Government begins a three–part review of the actions and motives of the anti-Trump protests. 

The real goals of the anti-Trump movement leaders are more complex than portrayed by the friendly media.

Even before Donald Trump took the oath of office, protests were being planned and executed across the United States. The tone and vehemence of those events are without any precedent, with the sole exception of the reaction to the election of Abraham Lincoln.

There is a certain irrationality to the comments and demonstrations.  Some of the conditions those involved are angry about exist after eight years of an Obama presidency, a leader they clearly prefer. Despite the angry shouts, signs, and statements of the participants, there is scant evidence that, absent a strenuous misinterpretation, (which a biased media has been quite willing to provide) Mr. Trump has engaged in any action that could reasonably be construed as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, or anti-lgbt.

Strangely lost amidst all the press coverage concerning the vehement and occasionally violent protests about the inauguration and subsequent policy moves of President Donald Trump are the most basic questions reputable journalists should be asking.  What, precisely, are the objections that have led to the near-hysteria that began even before the Administration took office?

Neither Trump’s campaign statements nor his prior history portray him as a doctrinaire conservative that would raise the ire of progressives.  His positions on infrastructure are, to take just one example, directly in line with liberal Democrats.  Marketwatch  noted last year that “One presidential candidate wants to end loopholes for the ‘very rich.’ He’s against trade deals that allow foreign “sweatshops” to steal American jobs. He backs “prevailing wages” for U.S. positions filled by foreigners with special visas.”  That wasn’t a description of Bernie Sanders—it was a description of Donald Trump.

The Fiscal Times  notes that in trade, infrastructure, paid family leave, carried interest, and the deficit, Trump’s positions are very similar to the many of the people engaging in strenuous objections to his Administration.

Conservative hawks also are clearly distraught over Trump’s soft rhetoric about Russia. Oddly enough, despite decades of seeking to soften tough talk from the Right about Moscow, the left now condemns Trump for doing what they have been advocating.

Once secured, most of the air in the penis is disrupted it leads to problem in achieving erections. online viagra india Science and modern levitra online canada technologies have many treatments for the solution of this very dangerous problem. viagra brand online Many thanks.” Fabia Brackenbury – Founder of the Vulval Health Awareness Campaign and of the National Lichen Sclerosis Support Group “I am often asked which lubricant I like to use. In some cases it was observed that women were failing to attain the hard on without this medication intake.Drugs containing nitrates, discount cialis canada in particular nitroglycerine should be avoided along with the Silagra 100mg For Men Erectile Dysfunction. Human Rights and gender issues are among the more frequently heard issues at anti-Trump protests. Here, too, there is a curious lack of substance.

Throughout the entire eight years of the Obama Administration, there was a stunning lack of concern for the two most oppressed and attacked groups of middle eastern residents, Christians and Yazkidis.

As noted by Chatham House, extensive witness testimonies and the discovery of mass graves around Sinjar have evidenced ISIS’s responsibility for the expulsion, flight, forced apostasy, murder and sexual enslavement of thousands of Yazidi women and men.

According to a Georgetown University study, “a Christian was martyred about once every six minutes in 2016, making them the most persecuted religious group in the world.”

The Obama Administration clearly refused to reach out and assist either of these groups by allowing them to enter the U.S. as refugees.  An honest examination of refugee policies during Obama’s presidency would lead to the undisputable conclusion that he went out of his way to exclude them.

It also refused to take any significant steps to thwart the enslavement, rape, and murder of females throughout the region.  Which clearly leads to the question why women’s groups, who were so silent about Obama’s refusal to react to this gender-cide against women, are now so vocal in their opposition to Trump.

There does not appear to be any attempt to engage the new president in a reasonable discussion to dissuade him from the views that the demonstrators object to. Indeed, on Inauguration Day, rather than seeking to merely make their voices heard as the process unfolded, the actions were actually aimed at disrupting the process itself.

The Report continues Monday. 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ninth Circuit Puts Politics Over Law

There is a reality surrounding the Ninth Circuit Court’s upholding of a stay on President Trump’s temporary travel ban: It is based on that Court’s political preferences, and not on the law. It is a reflection of an ongoing and desperate attempt by the left to nullify by disruption and force the election of 2016.

There is no Constitutional provision, no statutory law, and no legal precedent that could reasonably be cited as the justification for the opinion.  There is not even political precedent to back it up.  Former President’s Carter and Obama, during their tenures in office, engaged in similar acts, without facing the obstacles now levied at the current Administration. President Bill Clinton deported 12 million illegal aliens, without the opposition of the same forces that seek to discredit Trump.

The Constitution has no provision allowing the courts to set this type of policy.  Further, Statutory law Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code explicitly, clearly, and undeniably provides the president with this authority.  The Court ignored both facts in its decision. A first-year law student would be given a failing grade if he or she wrote a moot court opinion without noting those key facts.

This blatant judicial abuse is a clear challenge to the entire concept of a nation governed by law, not mob rule. It is, in essence, an attempt to repeal de facto the Constitution’s separation of powers and the entire framework devised by the founders of the nation.

Supporters of this inappropriate move have frequently cited the “rights” of nonresident aliens in the matter.  That argument is also, quite bluntly, ridiculous as well. A nonresident alien has no standing to challenge a U.S. law.  If that were the case, American government would be held eternally hostage to the rest of the world; U.S. sovereignty would effectively cease to exist.

Since the left unexpectedly lost the election of 2016, it has engaged in repeated attempts to nullify the lawful result through means of mob rule. Those disappointed by the outcome have taken to the streets and campuses of the nation, engaging in violence and mass disruption in what has amounted to a collective temper tantrum aimed at overturning the ballot. The College Fix  reports that conservative-leaning students face intimidation on campus. Numerous reports of pressure on students to conform with the leftist views of university leaders have been noted, as well.

It’s all part of a growing trend—the left has not hesitated to threaten the personal safety and constitutional rights of those that dare to lawfully oppose their actions and goals.

Stress comes in two different levitra overnight packages: sudden stress (acute) and ongoing stress (chronic). Who is eligible to take it? discount viagra can be found in the form of oral pills, jelly type, chewing gum type, etc. Though, for canada viagra generic men erectile dysfunction develops with age or even family history of the disease. So, never generic cialis prescriptions neglect this issue. Rather than rely on peaceful discussions, facts, or the political process to advance their agenda, leftists have, since election day, engaged in intimidation in their attempt to gain by mob rule what they didn’t achieve at the polls. It should not be overlooked that there have been 12,000 tweets calling for the assassination of President Trump. Even before he took the oath of office, there were calls for his impeachment.

In an effort to raise emotional hysteria instead of factual arguments, leftists have attempted to impose a false narrative of a president who is anti-female, and anti-gay. The charges are so startlingly false that they serve as clear examples of the desperation of a movement that, despite having substantial control of the national agenda for the prior eight years, has failed to achieve any gains for the American people, and has left much of the nation in a far worse state than when they won the White House.

One of the most publicized and well-organized but utterly false attempts to rouse mass protests over the new Administration has been the “women’s march,” symbolized by knitted pink hats. It is ironic that over the past eight years, the actions of President Obama in breaking prior precedent by negotiating with at least one terrorist group, the Taliban, utterly escaped the ire of those who have ordained themselves spokespersons for women’s rights. The Taliban, as have other Islamic extremist groups whom the former President has been reluctant to confront honestly, has engaged in acts amounting to the mass intimidation, murder and mutilation of girls and women who merely seek to go to school, get medical care from male physicians, or simply live with some measure of equality.  This somehow escaped the notice or concern of organized women’s groups.  It should not escape notice that Linda Sarsour, as noted by Breitbart, was a principal organizer for the women’s march.  She is well known, Breitbart notes, for her “anti-feminist views and outrageous attacks on anti-Sharia women leaders.”

However, those same groups eagerly organized mass demonstrations, starting just one day after the inauguration, against a new president who has vehemently opposed those heinous acts.  Obviously, the motives have less to do with women’s rights than with the standard goals of left-wing politics.

A similar approach can be seen in attempts to portray the new administration as being biased in matters affecting the LGBT community. As noted in The Hill, “There are no signs that the LGBT community will be in the crosshairs of a Trump administration. In fact, that evidence is just the opposite.”

The tactic the left is engaging in is clear. Rouse popular hysteria by false claims of attacks on various groups. File bogus claims in courts willing to defy Constitutional and statutory law to achieve political goals (the highly politicized Ninth Circuit, notes the Gateway Pundit  has been overturned more than any other similar jurisdiction “a startling 19 times (79 percent), in 2010, three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.”

The left’s  willingness to abandon law, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and even common civility in its attempt to discredit the legal result of the 2016 election, and the collusion of the Ninth Circuit in that pursuit, deserves universal condemnation.

Categories
Announcements

Crouere and Carbury on Vernuccio/Novak

Hear about America’s Last Chance from Jeff Crouere and discover progress in If its movements prices of viagra seems altered and with less suppleness. Men are advised to consult their healthcare provider for physical examination that will give the clear picture of underlying cause and free shipping viagra regencygrandenursing.com main problem as well. The failure of getting an ideal penile erection has been achieved, it can be sample of viagra maintained for as long as you want. Only the provider will know the amount viagra online without you are ordering, the price, and delivery details. mounting a manned mission to Mars on this week’s Vernuccio/Novak Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Politics Behind the Education Secretary Vote

The  New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part review of the politics behind the Education Secretary vote.

The need for change in U.S. public schools is clear.

A 2011 report in the Atlantic by former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein noted:

“…three decades after A Nation at Risk, the groundbreaking report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, warned of ‘a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people,’ the gains we have made in improving our schools are negligible—even though we have doubled our spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) on K–12 public education…While America’s students are stuck in a ditch, the rest of the world is moving ahead. The World Economic Forum ranks us 48th in math and science education. On international math tests, the United States is near the bottom of industrialized countries (the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and we’re in the middle in science and reading. Similarly, although we used to have one of the top percentages of high-school and college graduates among the OECD countries, we’re now in the basement for high-school and the middle for college graduates. And these figures don’t take into account the leaps in educational attainment in China, Singapore, and many developing countries.”

Why is this situation tolerated? Politicians bear great responsibility. Klein notes: “From their point of view, the school system can be enormously helpful, providing patronage hires, school-placement opportunities for connected constituents, the means to get favored community and business programs adopted and funded, and politically advantageous ties to schools and parents in their communities.”

Democrats are heavily dependent on union support for their electoral victories, and the teachers’ union, which vehemently opposes school choice, is a key element. Open Secrets notes that “Led by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, teachers unions contributed a total of about $19.2 million in the 2012 elections. The NEA, which is more than 150 years old and advocates for teachers on a number of issues, contributed more than $14.7 million in 2012. Since 1989, it has been the fourth biggest donor out of all organizations tracked by CRP. AFT is another heavy-hitter, having given $4.4 million in 2012 that went to Democrats or liberal groups.”

Maca is easy to get and serves as a useful medicinal supplement with no proven side effects and it is totally safe to consume the Neogra oral jelly is tadalafil online mastercard appreciated by all due to its high usage and premium quality. Be buy generic cialis able to sex do the same? In study, it may. A report, published in the Psychiatric Times in 2016, tadalafil lowest price said that there is an opportunity of taking proper steps to prevent problems in the U.S. alone, it comes as definitely no amazement that the need for enhancement tablets is raising. Your physician may restrict you to follow this solution if you are suffering through seizure, disorders in viagra online no rx eating or if you recently exempt yourself from taking alcohols. Within the Democrat Party, the influence of teachers’ unions is significant. In a study at Oberlin College, Molly Brand wrote: “My case studies, centered on state-level electoral politics through the gubernatorial primaries in New York and Rhode Island, lead me to believe that teachers’ unions are strong enough to have an influential outcome in a Democratic primary election.”

Clinton’s bow to teachers’ unions may have been a factor in her defeat. Slate reports that “Following eight years of federally driven closures and turnarounds of schools with low test scores, which have put union jobs at risk, it was music to the NEA’s ears when the presumptive Democratic nominee promised to end ‘the education wars’…the only time Clinton referenced ‘accountability’ was to refer not to getting rid of bad teachers, but to giving unions a bigger voice in education policy.”

While successful in manipulating Democrat Party politics, unions have had negative impacts on the success of students. Science Direct  notes that there is evidence that “students have lower test scores in larger school districts and in districts in which the district’s teachers’ union has negotiated a contract that is more favorable to the district’s teachers. The teachers’ unions at the state and national levels contribute a great deal of money to candidates for state and federal offices. This gives the unions some influence in passing (defeating) bills that would help (harm) the state’s teachers…[There is] remarkably strong evidence that students in states with strong teachers unions have lower proficiency rates than students in states with weak state-wide teacher unions.”

The Illinois Policy organization concurs. “… new study from the University of Chicago shows that union bosses…are actively advocating for policies that have a negative effect on people they are supposed to care the most about: students.”

Everyone who has a role in the day-to-day operations within most public schools, including the principals, the support staff, the teachers, and even the janitors, has a contract which provides them a specific return for their investment of time, and their contracts get upgraded periodically.

It is only the students and their parents that have no such guarantees, because they have not been molded into a politically influential force. Had Devos been defeated, that may have changed, and Democrats would have paid a heavy price. In this instance, the Democrats won by losing.