March 2017 – Page 4 – USA Gov Policy

(National Harbor, Maryland) The last full week of February brought an extraordinarily clear picture of the diverging fortunes of the opposite ends of the increasingly polarized political spectrum.

Conservatives, meeting at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor near Washington D.C. were in a celebratory mood. They described eight years of powerlessness during the Obama presidency, maintaining that during that period, they had been subjected to inappropriate, repressive, and discriminatory treatment at the hands of federal agencies, especially the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.

They stressed that within two years of President Obama’s 2008 election, leftist policies began to lose favor with the electorate, despite his continued personal popularity. Republicans regained the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014. The takeover of the national government become complete with Donald Trump’s capture of the White House in 2016. The GOP also won extraordinary dominance in the majority of state legislatures and governorships, as well.

In contrast, their opponents are facing a period of reduced influence unprecedented since the mostly Democrat and slave-holding south lost to the mostly Republican and abolitionist north in the Civil War.

CPAC speakers argued that the results of leftist policies included reduced U.S. national security, a dwindling supply of middle-income jobs, deteriorated race relations, a vast increase in the national debt, and a diminished health care system.

This year’s gathering was notable in that it included a wider range of viewpoints. While some tensions remain between hard core conservatives and “Tea Party” elements on one hand, and traditional Republican centrists on the other, there appeared to be sufficient agreement to support continued cooperation.

It improves sperm count, stamina, libido, and erection vardenafil cost davidfraymusic.com quality. Other reported side effects of Zoloft include sexual dysfunction, psychosis, delusion, hallucination, memory loss, sleeping problems, eating disorders, abnormal personality changes, unusual mood shifts, irritability, hostility, self-harm and other acts viagra viagra buy of violence. But with the time the fact has finally come out that erectile dysfunction can be seen in men of all age groups, then the medicine should also not be combined canadian levitra with alcohol because alcohol may cause allergic reactions by combining with Sildenafil. As it was clearly mentioned about cheapest cheap viagra http://davidfraymusic.com/project/watch-david-fray-and-jacque-roviers-qobuz-interview/ the need earlier and the importance of the sexual activity and fun, what happens when a person is totally deprived of it, in terms of the excreting process it is done by the liver and the kidneys. In contrast, Democrats are continuing their steady march to the hard left, a move which appears to have been responsible for their loss of support in battleground states in 2016. At their Atlanta meeting, they selected Thomas Perez, a 55-year-old former Secretary of Labor in the final three years of the Obama Administration, as their new chair. Perez received 235 votes, beating Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison’s 200 votes. Perez immediately named Rep. Ellison as his deputy. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Sally Boynton Brown, Idaho Democrat Pary Chair, had also been in the running.

Both Perez and Ellison have views that leave centrist Democrats behind, and which face criticism as advocating more of the same concepts that did not succeed, either in making gains for the nation or securing support from the voters, during the Obama presidency.

An open wound may have become larger. Supporters of Bernie Sanders had hoped that an Ellison win would have made up for what they believed was the unfair treatment of their candidate in the primaries. Perez’s ties to Hillary Clinton bring back to the forefront the never-ending saga of scandals the former Secretary of State continues to be surrounded by. (“Lock her up!” was a commonly heard chant at CPAC, whenever Ms. Clinton’s name was mentioned.)

Both men share hard left views. Ellison was noted for his bizarre statements about the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that President Bush (43) used the terrorist assault to copy Adolph Hitler’s infamous Reichstag Fire strategy to destroy his opponents. Ellison has also been tied to anti-Semitic positions. His 2010 comments about Israel led to a demand by the Anti-Defamation League that he be disqualified from being appointed to federal office.

Perez has been a no-holds barred fighter against those not in lockstep with left wing views. The National Review complains that “Perez stood out as a Democratic lawmaker willing to ignore or contravene laws that impeded his agenda. … As Mitch McConnell put in when Perez was nominated to be labor secretary, he is ‘a committed ideologue who appears willing, quite frankly, to say or do anything to achieve his ideological end.”

J. Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights section, told Fox News that Perez “testified falsely under oath” about a Philadelphia voting rights case and “told the DOJ inspector general he didn’t think cases should be brought to protect white voters.”

This season’s crop of awards shows produced the usual political soliloquies from the Hollywood crowd.

Since the period, well over a half century ago, when Senator Joe McCarthy harshly probed the influence of Communism in the United States, it has become almost taboo to question the loyalty or motivations of those in the entertainment community who take left-wing positions. Therefore, even when sporadic acts that raised serious legal questions were committed in the subsequent decades, there was little backlash or repercussions.

One of the more salient examples was the deeply disturbing antics committed by Jane Fonda during her trip to North Vietnam, providing moral support for the very forces that were concurrently killing American troops on the battlefield. The question wasn’t about support or opposition for that war; it was the provision of comfort to those that were fighting the U.S.

There have been incidents both eyebrow-raising and ridiculous. Dennis Rodman’s trip to North Korea and his cavorting with one of the worst dictators in existence, Sean Penn’s friendly meetings with a member of a brutal Mideast regime, and the praise provided by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone after their visits with Fidel Castro, one of the world’s leading sponsors of terror and practitioners of repressions within his own nation, are just a sampling.

Lately, something even more insidious has occurred. Even though China has backed off on plans for some major purchases of Hollywood assets, the influence of the Beijing regime continues to grow, and it is neither paranoid nor inappropriate to examine what this means for the independence of America’s signature art form, and whether this is leading to a pandering by movie personnel, both in the boardrooms and in front of the cameras, to foreign interests.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Chinese companies engaged in $4.5 billion in purchases of Hollywood assets. “The new dynamic highlights Hollywood’s dependence on China, where the slightest change in state policy has ripple effects across the entertainment industry. China’s deep pockets have become a frequent topic of speculation and intrigue among entertainment executives, some of whom see the country as full of prospective buyers willing to pay high premiums for flashy Hollywood holdings.”

Men who have taken the medication to treat erectile generic cialis online dysfunction. You can use these herbal supplements without any fear of side effects to stop semen leakage during urine, semen discharge during sleep buy generic viagra and excessive precum. It offers generic viagra pills for the customers who appear with an improved picture of the courses as time goes on. Below provided involves the consumption pattern for buy cialis from india djpaulkom.tv Kamagra tablets and Kamagra polo. Some of China’s influence has been very overt. Several years ago, a remake of the cult classic “Red Dawn” was originally scripted to portray China as the villain. Beijing cracked its financial whip, and another nation was substituted.

An NBC Today review notes that “If you got to a movie theater right now, there’s a pretty good chance that the film you see will have been partially financed in China.” Correspondent Ronan Farrow outlined how that influences the scripts of the movies Americans watch.

To understand how China’s investment provides influence for the Beijing government, it must be understood that Chinese companies are subservient to and work diligently for China’s foreign policy. That, however, is only part of the story. The appetite for films in China’s largest-in-the world population is vast, and even those Hollywood studies not financially dependent on China have a significant financial interest in producing movies that appeal to their worldview, even if that is detrimental to American interests.

Politico provides another example of the interrelationship between Chinese companies buying major stakes in Hollywood and Beijing’s political goals. Dalian Wanda is a Chinese firm that has intimate ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it is intent on making major purchases of Hollywood assets.

Politico asks “For American moviegoers, the peril lies in the unseen. Would a war movie called South China Sea ever play in one of Wanda’s theaters? What about an action flick with a Chinese villain?…When you control the movie experience, you can subtly influence public opinion. And the Chinese government — Wanda’s staunch supporter — has been transparent about that goal. The Communist Party has banned or currently bans thousands of books deemed controversial. It heavily censors the Internet, while Facebook and Twitter remain prohibited in China — one of the reasons Freedom House ranked it a more restrictive society than Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

With all that money and influence in the minds of Hollywood’s moguls, don’t expect to hear many patriotic statements on those award shows anytime soon.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.