Month: February 2018

Categories
Quick Analysis

Academia, Internet Giants vs. Free Speech Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its examination of the growing threats to free speech throughout the United States academia, and the rising influence and power of social media giants.

Hayden Ludwig, a communications associate at the Capital Research Center, reports:

“If you’ve ever contemplated what censorship in media looks like, here’s an illustration.

At 12:00 PM on February 8, the Capital Research Center released our latest short video entitled ‘The Dirty Secrets of Democratic Politics.’ I narrated that brief exposé on Robert Creamer, the longtime Democratic Party operative whose attempts to smear Donald Trump supporters in 2016 using violent agitators were exposed by the investigative group Project Veritas. When Project Veritas promoted the video in a tweet that afternoon, we discovered that YouTube had removed CRC’s video for supposedly violating their community guidelines on ‘hate speech.’  In less than 6 hours, our video—which contains no “hate speech” or other violations of YouTube’s community guidelines of any kind, and even used footage from Project Veritas that has been up on YouTube for well over a year and has millions of views—was flagged for review and removed by a platform supposedly built on promoting free speech.It isn’t the first time YouTube has censored our work. In December 2017, the company targeted another CRC video called ‘Right-Wing or Left-Wing, Identity Politics is Destroying America,’ narrated by CRC film and video producer Joseph Klein. Despite our nonpartisan critique of identity politics for driving Americans apart, YouTube restricted access to the video—blocking it from view in 28 foreign countries and halting American viewers from advertising, commenting, or ‘liking’ the video…After we fought back and brought these outrages to light, YouTube quietly reinstated both videos. But it’s become increasingly clear: when it comes to allowing free speech, YouTube is willing to break their professed values if it advances their ideology at the cost of conservatives.”

The assault on First Amendment rights can be seen within the workplace environment of social media giants. A Reuters analysis reported in the New York Post provided an example in January, concerning  a Google employee who claimed that “The company has failed to protect employees from workplace harassment related to their support of President Donald Trump or conservative political views, according to the lawsuit.”

Hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis’s function which is not perfect nor stable, that is the main reason. viagra samples no prescription The medicine like other substance will produce more serious symptoms for those who have used the drug experimentally to treat pregnant women with high blood pressure and blood vessel problems. prescription cialis In addition, you can also go with online service. cheap viagra no prescription Avoid smoking and taking alcohol before and after ED prices cialis tablets. Robert Epstein, writing in U.S. News, states that “Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.  The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.”

Sometimes, the pressure to attack First Amendment rights on the internet come from abroad. Project Veritas  disclosed the following: “Twitter Bans Users Under Pressure From Their Foreign Governments: ‘We Do That a Lot for China…[a] Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a former Twitter software engineer admitting that Twitter acts under the whims and pressures of foreign governments – notably China – by silencing and banning users at their request.”

How has censorship become an increasingly acceptable tactic, predominately for those on the left? Andrew analyzed the question in a City Journal article:

“Nothing scandalizes a leftist like the truth…The Left has co-opted our good manners and our good will in order to silence our opposition to their bad policies. The idea is to make it seem impolite and immoral to mention the obvious…Google/YouTube now stands charged by multiple accusers of singling out conservative voices for censorship, “fact-checking,” and demonetization. Hidden-camera videos released by Project Veritas this week show Twitter employees conspiring to “shadow ban” conservatives on their system. On campus, intelligent conservative speakers of good will like Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and Christina Hoff-Sommers have faced violent protests meant to shut them up. No person of importance on the right seeks to silence anyone on the left. The Left, on the other hand, is broadly committed to ostracizing, blacklisting, and even criminalizing right-wing speech…”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Academia, Internet Giants vs. Free Speech

The growing threats to free speech throughout the United States come from a number of sources, including government officials, academia, and the rising influence and power of social media giants.

The threats by government leaders, such as former attorney general Loretta Lynch who, while in office, considered “criminally prosecuting” anyone who disagreed with President Obama on climate change, and the move by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to limit the application of the First Amendment concerning paid political speech, may have diminished due to the results of the 2016 election. But in other circles, the pressure to mothball free speech rights continues.

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has released a vital document, which charts academic freedom over the past 103 years. According to author David Randall, “We publish this chart today because America faces a growing crisis about who can say what on our college campuses.”

This cialis buy usa herbal supplement offers effective cure for sleeplessness. As everyone knows A healthy viagra spain heart is the pumping apparatus of the body. Reliable outlets usually offer side effects of levitra complete details about the medication and buy the one as recommended by your doctor. The side effects viagra most important aspects of a satisfying sexual life that you required. According to the study, “At root this is a crisis of authority. In recent decades university administrators, professors, and student activists have quietly excluded more and more voices from the exchange of views on campus. This has taken shape in several ways, not all of which are reducible to violations of ‘academic freedom.’ The narrowing of campus debate by de-selection of conservatives from faculty positions, for example, is not directly a question of academic freedom though it has proven to have dire consequences in various fields where professors have severely limited the range of ideas they present in courses …Potent threats to academic freedom can arise from the collective will of faculty members themselves. This is the situation that confronts us today. Decades of progressive orthodoxy in hiring, textbooks, syllabi, student affairs, and public events have created campus cultures where legitimate intellectual debates are stifled and where dissenters, when they do venture forth, are often met with censorious and sometimes violent responses. Student mobs, egged on by professors and administrators, now sometimes riot to prevent such dissent. The idea of “safe spaces” and a new view of academic freedom as a threat to the psychological wellbeing of disadvantaged minorities have gained astonishing popularity among students.”

Students have begun to realize the dangers of campus censorship.  Shuhankar Chhhokra, writing in the Harvard Crimson notes: “What happens when we replace the high-strung, passionate atmosphere of the campus protest with the sober, more intellectually demanding lecture hall? Far scarier than any campus protest was my experience in class last week, when in light of the grievances of these student protesters, we discussed the limits that should be placed on disagreeable speech on campuses. We asked ourselves in all seriousness a question that, despite the irony, I believe is too dangerous to even entertain: When is censorship okay?…If we dive into the diction of this new student activism—diction that some of the most vocal supporters of free speech restrictions used in my class ad nauseam last week—we may see some, albeit poor, rationalization of their demands. Disagreeable speech is no longer “offensive”; rather, it’s “hostile.” It is no longer a violation of good taste, but a prima facie violation of the victim’s personhood and liberty. A student in my class claimed that repeated microaggressions pose a quantifiable threat to their victims’ lives, equal in severity to physical violence itself. This reframing of an argument about decorum to a patently false, histrionic one about something far more critical is how these calls for censorship may actually gain some traction.”

The internet is the greatest revolution in the availability of information since the invention of the printing press.  However, the leadership and staff of social media giants have begun to use their extraordinary power to warp public discussion by censoring out ideas and beliefs that they disagree with.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Can the President’s Infrastructure Plan Succeed? Part 2

The White House infrastructure plan has been criticized by some for not providing full federal funding, and for calls to shift some responsibility to the states, and privatizing some assets.  The American Society of Civil Engineers worries that “the proposal does not address the nearly insolvent Highway Trust Fund. Our nation’s surface transportation infrastructure accounts for more than three-quarters of the overall infrastructure investment deficit, and bolstering the Trust Fund would go a long way toward closing that gap.”

The Brookings Institute writes that “… the proposed cuts elsewhere in the FY 2019 Budget mean the administration is effectively asking everyone else – especially cities and states – to do nearly all the spending all while still claiming credit for new investments. There are certainly commendable elements within the 53 pages, but the core programs include too much cynicism and too little leadership.”

Despite the criticism, the plan actually has a chance to succeed, because frankly there is very little in the way of alternatives that could actually do better.  Washington clearly cannot increase the tax burden to fully finance the effort, since that would place a serious handicap on the economy and further diminish the availability of funds.  Additionally, many Americans, both in government and in the private sector, have become exceptionally frustrated at the bureaucratic roadblocks that the Trump plan seeks to reduce.

This is the official White House fact sheet on the legislative outline, as it impacts the 2018 budget:

Importance of Infrastructure

 The President has consistently emphasized that the Nation’s infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and modernized to create jobs, maintain America’s economic competitiveness, and connect communities and people to more opportunities. The United States no longer has the best infrastructure in the world. For example, according to the World Economic Forum, the United States’ overall infrastructure places 12th, with countries like Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and France ranking above us. This underperformance is evident in many areas, from our congested highways, which costs the country $160 billion annually in lost productivity, to our deteriorating water systems, which experience 240,000 water main breaks annually.

The Current System is Not Working

The Federal Government inefficiently invests in non-Federal infrastructure. In part, our lack of sustained progress has been due to confusion about the Federal Government’s role in infrastructure. During the construction of the Interstate System, the Federal Government played a key role – collecting and distributing Federal tax revenue to fund a project with a Federal purpose. As we neared the completion of the Interstate System, those tax receipts were redirected to projects with substantially weaker nexus to Federal interests.

The flexibility to use Federal dollars to pay for essentially local infrastructure projects has created an unhealthy dynamic in which State and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving Federal funds. Overreliance on Federal grants and other Federal funding can create a strong disincentive for non-Federal revenue generation.

At the same time, we continue to apply Federal rules, regulations, and mandates on virtually all infrastructure investments. This is despite the Federal Government contributing a very small percentage of total infrastructure spending. Approximately one-fifth of infrastructure spending is Federal, while the other four-fifths are roughly equally divided between State and local governments on one hand and the private sector on the other.

We will reevaluate the role for the Federal Government in infrastructure investment. For example, in the Interstate System, the Federal Government now acts as a complicated, costly middleman between the collection of revenue and the expenditure of those funds by States and localities. Put simply, the Administration will be exploring whether this arrangement still makes sense, or whether transferring additional responsibilities to the States is appropriate.

The Administration’s Goal: Seek and Secure Long-Term Changes

Given these challenges, the Administration’s goal is to seek long-term reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained. Providing more Federal funding, on its own, is not the solution to our infrastructure challenges. Rather, we will work to fix underlying incentives, procedures, and policies to spur better infrastructure decisions and outcomes, across a range of sectors.

Key Principles

As the Administration develops policy and regulatory changes, and seeks statutory proposals working with Congress, we will focus on proposals that fall under the following key principles:

  1. Make Targeted Federal Investments. Focusing Federal dollars on the most transformative projects and processes stretches the use and benefit of taxpayer funds. When Federal funds are provided, they should be awarded to projects that address problems that are a high priority from the perspective of a region or the Nation, or projects that lead to longterm changes in how infrastructure is designed, built, and maintained.
  2. Encourage Self-Help. Many States, tribes, and localities have stopped waiting for Washington to come to the rescue and have raised their own dedicated revenues for infrastructure. Localities are better equipped to understand the right level – and type – of infrastructure investments needed for their communities, and the Federal Government should support more communities moving toward a model of independence.
  3. Align Infrastructure Investment with Entities Best Suited to Provide Sustained and Efficient Investment. The Federal Government provides services that non-Federal entities, including the private sector, could deliver more efficiently. The Administration will look for opportunities to appropriately divest from certain functions, which will provide better services for citizens, and potentially generate budgetary savings. The Federal Government can also be more efficient about disposing underused capital assets, ensuring those assets are put to their highest and best use.
  4. Leverage the Private Sector. The private sector can provide valuable benefits for the delivery of infrastructure, through better procurement methods, market discipline, and a long-term focus on maintaining assets. While public-private partnerships will not be the solution to all infrastructure needs, they can help advance the Nation’s most important, regionally significant projects.

2018 Budget

The President’s target of $1 trillion in infrastructure investment will be funded through a combination of new Federal funding, incentivized non-Federal funding, and newly prioritized and expedited projects. While this Administration proposes additional funding for infrastructure, we will structure that funding to incentivize additional non-Federal funding, reduce the cost associated with accepting Federal dollars, and ensure Federal funds are leveraged such that the end result is at least $1 trillion in total infrastructure spending. While we will continue to work with the Congress, States, tribes, localities, and other infrastructure stakeholders to finalize the suite of Federal programs that will support this effort, the 2018 Budget includes $200 billion in outlays related to the infrastructure initiative.

In addition to the $200 billion, these proposals are also in the 2018 Budget:

  • Air Traffic Control Corporatization. The Budget proposes to create a nongovernmental entity to manage the nation’s air traffic control system. Many countries have corporatized their air traffic control function, separating it from the governmental aviation safety regulation function. This will be a multi-year effort resulting in a more efficient airspace while maintaining our premier aviation safety record. The proposal would reduce aviation passenger taxes and the new entity would be responsible for setting and collecting fees directly from users based on their use of the Nation’s airspace.
  • Increase Infrastructure Flexibility at VA. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a nationwide physical footprint that includes aging facilities, which are not always located where veterans most need care. The Administration will pursue numerous reforms to help VA acquire and maintain the facilities necessary to provide veterans high quality medical care where they live. The Budget includes proposals to expand VA’s authority to lease out its vacant assets for commercial or mixed-use purposes and to speed its ability to pursue facility renovations and improvements. Future reforms will encourage public-private partnerships and reduce barriers to acquisition, contracting, and disposals.
  • Divestiture of the Power Marketing Administration’s (PMA’s) Transmission Assets. The Budget proposes to sell the PMA’s transmission assets. Investor-owned utilities provide for the vast majority of the Nation’s electricity needs. The PMA’s transmission infrastructure assets (lines, towers, substations, and rights of way) could be leased out so the private sector could fulfill transmission functions. Leasing these assets will more efficiently allocate economic resources and help relieve long-term pressures on the Federal deficit related to future Federal capital investment.
  • Reform the laws governing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Budget proposes to reform the laws governing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, including by establishing a fee to increase the amount paid by commercial navigation users of inland waterways. In 1986, the Congress mandated that commercial traffic on the inland waterways be responsible for 50 percent of the capital costs of the locks, dams, and other features that make barge transportation possible on the inland waterways. The additional revenue proposed in the Budget will finance future capital investments in these waterways to support economic growth.

If you ask to what viagra tablet for sale do I attribute my spectacular health, the answer is easy: my balanced, plant-based diet of whole, fresh, natural foods and lots of great, fun outdoor exercise. DOSAGE PATTERN The http://djpaulkom.tv/find-out-where-dj-paul-got-his-latest-tattoo/ order viagra online dosage pattern is very simple and easy lifestyle changes suggested by the experts. You are advised lowest price cialis to consume healthy diet. viagra on line These schools have taken it upon themselves to provide education to differently-abled children.
Illustrative Examples of Funding Proposals

The following proposals will be pursued by the Administration as part of the Infrastructure Initiative.

  • Expand the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program. TIFIA helps finance surface transportation projects through direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. One dollar of TIFIA subsidy leverages roughly $40 in project value. If the amount of TIFIA subsidy was increased to $1 billion annually for 10 years, that could leverage up to $140 billion in credit assistance, and approximately $424 billion in total investment. In addition, the Administration supports the expansion of TIFIA eligibility.
  • Lift the Cap on Private Activity Bonds and Expand Eligibility to Other Non-Federal Public Infrastructure. The Private Activity Bonds (PABs) program allows the Department of Transportation to allocate authority to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of private entities constructing highway and freight transfer facilities. PABs have been used to finance many Public Private Partnerships (P3s) projects, along with TIFIA. As of August 15, 2016, nearly $11.2 billion in PABs have been issued for 23 projects. The Administration recommends removing the $15 billion cap under current law to ensure that future P3 projects can take advantage of this cost-saving tool, and encourage more project sponsors to take advantage of this tool. The Administration also supports the expansion of PAB eligibility.
  • Incentivize Innovative Approaches to Congestion Mitigation. The Urban Partnership Agreement Program – and its successor, the Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program – provided competitive grants to urbanized areas that were willing to institute a suite of solutions to congestion, including congestion pricing, enhanced transit services, increased telecommuting and flex scheduling, and deployment of advanced technology. Similar programs could provide valuable incentives for localities to think outside of the box in solving long-standing congestion challenges.
  • Liberalize Tolling Policy and Allow Private Investment in Rest Areas. Tolling is generally restricted on interstate highways. This restriction prevents public and private investment in such facilities. We should reduce this restriction and allow the States to assess their transportation needs and weigh the relative merits of tolling assets. The Administration also supports allowing the private sector to construct, operate, and maintain interstate rest areas, which are often overburden and inadequately maintained.
  • Fund the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (WIFIA) Program. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new WIFIA loan program is designed to leverage private investments in large drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects, particularly those large, high-cost projects that have private ownership or co-investment. Because WIFIA loans can only support up to 49 percent of a project’s eligible cost, the Federal investment must be leveraged with non-Federal sources.
  • Encourage the Use of Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Contributed/Advanced Funding Authorities.

Most construction work by the Corps is funded on a cost-shared basis between the Corps and a non-Federal sponsor. However, many projects authorized for construction, though a priority for non-Federal sponsors, do not present a high return for the Nation and therefore do not receive Federal funding. Some non-Federal sponsors have therefore chosen to fund construction activities on their own. The Administration will leverage the Corps’ authorities to enter into such agreements to take advantage of this innovative approach to delivering projects.

New Federal Tools:

The Federal Budget is recorded on a cash basis, which provides a transparent mechanism to record and control spending. Given the size of the Federal Government, cash budgets make sense because they are less complicated to produce and less subject to changes in economic assumptions. However, cash budgeting may not give appropriate weight to the long-term benefits of investing in infrastructure and cause the Government to make project choices that have lower short-term but higher-long term costs. We should discuss different tools to support better decision-making while maintaining transparency and fiscal restraint, such as:

  • Federal Capital Revolving Fund. The Administration is developing a proposal to establish a mandatory revolving fund for the financing of Federally-owned civilian capital assets. The Fund would be repaid with annual appropriations, and would help address the underinvestment in capital assets driven in part due to the large upfront costs of such procurements. Creation of such a fund parallel to the appropriations process to fund investment in Federally-owned civilian capital assets would avoid capital investments having to compete with operating expenses in the annual appropriations process. Instead, agencies would pay for capital assets as they are utilized. The repayments would be made from future appropriations, which would provide an incentive to select projects with the highest return on investment, including future cost avoidance.
  • Partnership Grants for Federal Assets. In a number of sectors, the Federal Government has utilized loans to non-Federal partners to improve infrastructure. However, credit assistance cannot be utilized to improve Federal assets. In essence, the Government neither can loan itself funding, nor can it make loans to private entities to improve assets that will remain Federal. In some circumstances, however, a private partner might want to build or improve a Federal facility and donate it to the Government in exchange for the right to retain revenue from the associated activities. The Administration is developing a proposal to offer those partners grants in lieu of loans to buy down the cost of a Federal asset improvements, which would benefit both the Government, through new facilities for Government use, and the non-Federal partner, through continued access to revenue sources

Environmental Review and Permitting Process Enhancements.

The environmental review and permitting process in the United States is fragmented, inefficient, and unpredictable. Existing statutes have important and laudable objectives, but the lack of cohesiveness in their execution make the delivery of infrastructure projects more costly, unpredictable, and time-consuming, all while adding little environmental protection. The Administration will seek several proposals that will enhance the environmental review and permitting process, such as:

  • Improving Environmental Performance. The inefficiencies of the current process result in too much time and too many resources dedicated to time-intensive analyses that do not necessarily improve the environment. The Administration will propose pilot programs to experiment with different ways projects will perform to better protect and enhance the environment.
  • Accountability. The review and permitting of projects should be included in each agency’s mission, and their performance should be tracked and measured. For agencies that significantly underperform, the public should know how much that costs both the taxpayers and the project. The Administration will seek proposals for tools to start holding agencies accountable for their performance.
  • One Federal Decision. Project proponents have to navigate the Federal environmental review and permitting process on their own. Under the current system, project sponsors work with one agency, only to be told to stand in line with several other agencies for numerous other approvals. We can do better. The Federal Government is capable of navigating its own bureaucracy and designating a single entity with responsibility for shepherding each project through the review and permitting process.
  • Unnecessary Approvals. The funding of infrastructure is predominately State, local and private, yet the Federal Government exerts an inordinate amount of control over all infrastructure with unnecessary bureaucratic processes. The Administration supports putting infrastructure permitting into the hands of responsible State and local officials where appropriate.
  • Judicial Reform. The current standards of judicial review force Federal agencies to spend unnecessary time and resources attempting to make a permit or other environmental document litigation-proof. The Administration believes our resources would be better spent on enhancing the environment rather than feeding needless litigation. As such, the Administration will submit proposals that curtail needless litigation.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Can The President’s Infrastructure Plan Succeed?

Photo:  U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Can the United States succeed in upgrading its infrastructure, which the American Society of Civil Engineers  has long rated as in a dangerous “D+” condition?

According to the White House, “Nothing more visibly reveals the failure of Washington than the crumbling roads, bridges, and infrastructure that dot America’s landscape. Instead of putting people to work, fragmented and unpredictable federal approval processes drag on for years and sometimes decades. It’s time to lighten the federal touch, provide clear rules of the road for new technologies, and empower communities to modernize this archaic system.”

Despite the general agreement on both sides of the political aisle that America’s infrastructure has urgently required attention for some time, nothing of consequence has been accomplished. Prior discussions have not concentrated on contentious roadblocks—such as lengthy environmental impact statements—that exacerbate any projects that seek to bring the nation’s road, bridges, airports and rail lines into the 21st century.  The White House cites Boston’s Anderson Bridge  as an example:

“The Anderson Memorial Bridge between Boston and Cambridge… took 11 months to build … in 1912. When it came time to repair it nearly 100 years later, the project dragged on for close to 5 years—and at a significant cost overrun. So with all the advantages of modern technology, why did it take more than 5 times as long to repair the structure today as it did to create it outright more than a century ago? Unsurprisingly, the reason has little to do with engineering or technical demands. Rather, the Anderson Bridge project was a victim of a bloated, tangled patchwork of regulatory oversight, including a historical commission, environmental agencies, and state transportation bureaucrats, among others.”

Clearly, there was not a great deal of optimism about President Trump’s pledge to finally address the issue. A careful examination of the White House’s just-released “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” however, indicates that this latest attempt might actually produce solid results.  Rather a mere recitation of the problem and a wishful description of goals, it actually provides a roadmap with viable solutions on how to overcome the obstacles and produce results.

With a national debt already exceeding $20 trillion , it is clear that there is no possibility that Washington could raise the necessary funding on its own.  The White House plan addresses alternative funding mechanisms.

According to the White House, “The President’s target of $1 trillion in infrastructure investment will be funded through a combination of new Federal funding, incentivized non-Federal funding, and newly prioritized and expedited projects. While this Administration proposes additional funding for infrastructure, we will structure that funding to incentivize additional non-Federal funding, reduce the cost associated with accepting Federal dollars, and ensure Federal funds are leveraged such that the end result is at least $1 trillion in total infrastructure spending. 3 While we will continue to work with the Congress, States, tribes, localities, and other infrastructure stakeholders to finalize the suite of Federal programs that will support this effort, the 2018 Budget includes $200 billion in outlays related to the infrastructure initiative.”
Try this great juice recipe a couple of hours after they are taken. generic for cialis Which states and cities will be involved? The Southern United States -California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Missouri (the meth capital of the http://appalachianmagazine.com/page/90/ 5mg generic cialis United States) and large cities like Chicago and New York. For example, on the last day of campaigning buy viagra online Visit This Link in the hotly contested 2010 Massachusetts Governors race, incumbent Deval Patrick and his Republican challenger Charlie Baker barnstormed both urban and rural areas. Damaging over here buy cheap cialis chemicals current in pesticides are generally detrimental to smaller animals this kind of as birds.
An official outline of the plan provides the following:

    $200 billion in Federal funding to spur at least $1.5 trillion in investments. Federal infrastructure spending will promote State, local, and private investments and maximize the value of every taxpayer dollar. Of this $200 billion, $100 billion will create an Incentives Program that will promote accountability by making Federal funding conditional on projects meeting agreed upon milestones.

  A $50 billion investment in infrastructure for Rural America. The bulk of the dollars in the Rural Infrastructure Program will be allocated to State governors, giving States the flexibility to prioritize their communities’ needs.

  Empowerment of State and local authorities. The President’s plan would return decision-making authority to the State and local level, including by expanding processes that allow environmental review and permitting decisions to be delegated to States.

  Elimination of barriers that prevent efficient development and management of infrastructure projects. For example, more flexibility will be provided to transportation projects that have minimal Federal funding but are currently required to seek Federal review and approval.

  Streamlined permitting to simplify the approval process. Working with Congress to establish a “one agency, one decision” structure for environmental reviews will shorten approval processes while protecting natural resources.

  Investment in America’s most important asset: its people. The President’s plan would reform Federal education and workforce development programs to better prepare Americans to perform the in-demand jobs of today and the future.

The Report concludes on Monday.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Paris Climate Accord Challenged

The underpinnings of the radical plan to alter the western economies based on charges of human-made climate change are beginning to disintegrate.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cited records only a few hundred years old, they ignored, intentionally, vital and relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

There is increasing skepticism over politically altered data from government agencies and universities. Concern exists about the significant negative impact of environmental extremists on scientific objectivity. In response, challenges are being issued to attempts to address allegations of human-made climate change with economic proposals that seem more in line with age-old attempts to replace capitalism with failed socialist practices.

The chief engine of the drive to use the climate change theory to pursue a wealth redistribution program has been the Paris Climate Accord. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. State Department’s (State) refusal to act on a series of CEI Freedom of Information Act requests for more information regarding State’s backstage work on the Paris Climate Agreement. The think tank, which during the Obama Administration was targeted for harassment, is seeking documents related to State’s use of outside individuals and groups, called “validators,” to promote the Paris climate treaty under the Obama Administration, and State’s use of an encrypted instant messaging service during the November 2017 Bonn conference on the UN’s climate change framework convention.

It http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/metis/ cheap cialis can also helps in treating stress, anxiety and depression. And with the technology blooming, viagra prescription price it can be easily available in the market. Additional obstacles can involve lack of commander cialis ability of the reproductive system. Congestion, diarrhea, headache, urinary tract free viagra 100mg infection, redness of the face, etc, are some side effects. According to CEI, “Documents and other information we have regarding our unprocessed requests strongly suggest the State Department has something serious to hide regarding its attempts to grease the skids for the energy-crippling climate plan that President Trump has rejected.”

There has been a great of criticism over the unprecedented and expensive proposals agreed to as part of the Paris Climate Accord. An Investors.com  review notes that even if climate change was as dire as advocates maintain, the economy-busting Paris Climate Accord would have little impact.  “According to the latest annual UN report on the ‘emissions gap,’ the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.”

The American Enterprise Institute questions the viability of the Paris Climate Accord proposals. “If we apply the EPA climate model under a set of assumptions that strongly exaggerate the effectiveness of international emissions reductions, the Paris emissions cuts, if achieved by 2030 and maintained fully on an international basis through 2100, would reduce temperatures by that year by 0.17 of a degree. The US contribution to that dubious achievement—the Obama climate action plan—would be 0.015 of a degree. Add another 0.01 of a degree if you believe that the Obama pseudo-agreement with China is meaningful. (It is not.) This effort to reduce GHG emissions would impose costs of at least 1 percent of global GDP, or roughly $600 billion to $750 billion or more per year, inflicted disproportionately upon the world’s poor. Would those arguing that the US should preserve the Paris status quo please explain how it can be justified simply as a straightforward exercise in benefit-cost analysis?

Climate changeis also being used by some state officials as an excuse to raise taxes, taking advantage of, and essentially eliminating within their jurisdictions, the impact of the Trump tax cuts.  Sterling Burnett, writing for Heartland,  reports: “The governors of Washington and Oregon and Democrat members of Congress are pushing bills to raise the price of energy through a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or by establishing a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and forcing industry and businesses to buy allowances to emit carbon. Capping carbon dioxide emissions and selling allowances to emit certain amounts of carbon dioxide is just a carbon (dioxide) tax by another name. These tax schemes penalize the use of the cheap, abundant energy sources which built the modern, prosperous economy and are largely responsible for pulling the United States out of 2008 recession.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Faces Dangerous Challenges in Pacific

 

Gen, Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, meets with Admiral Harris (DoD Photo)

How dangerous are the challenges facing the U.S. in the Pacific? America has committed 375,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and Coast Guard personnel to the region. Admiral Harry Harris, the Commander of America’s Pacific Command, (PACOM) recently testified before the House of Representatives’ Armed Service Committee. We provide the key excerpts from his comments.

One of the principal problems we face in the [Pacific] region is overcoming the perception that the U.S. is a declining power; a fully resourced defense budget, leading into long-term budget stability, will send a strong signal to our allies and partners – and all potential adversaries – that the U.S. is fully committed to preserving a free and open order in the Indo-Pacific.

The United States has an enduring national interest in the Indo-Pacific.  America’s security and economic prosperity are indelibly linked to this critical region, which remains at a precarious crossroad where tangible opportunity meets significant challenge.  Here we face a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.

Rogue regimes like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability.  This past year has seen rapid and comprehensive improvement in the DPRK’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, despite broad international condemnation and the imposition of additional United Nations Security Council Resolutions.  This includes the detonation of its largest nuclear device, first-ever launches of two different intercontinental ballistic missiles, and six launches of an intermediate-range ballistic missile – all of which Pyongyang emphatically states will target the United States and Guam.

While some might dispute both the reliability and quantity of the North’s strategic weapons, it is indisputable that KJU is rapidly closing the gap between rhetoric and capability.  The Republic of Korea and Japan have been living under the shadow of the DPRK’s threats for years; now, the shadow looms over the American homeland.

Nobody seeks or desires conflict with the DPRK, but the U.S. and our allies must prepare for the full range of contingency scenarios.

Meanwhile, China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific to their advantage.  While some view China’s actions in the East and South China Seas as opportunistic, I do not.  I view them as coordinated, methodical, and strategic, using their military and economic power to erode the free and open international order.

China’s aggression in the South China Sea moves along unabated, despite the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s tribunal ruling that invalidated China’s 9-dash line claim and unprecedented land reclamation in 2016.  And China is attempting to assert de facto sovereignty over disputed maritime features by further militarizing its man-made bases to this very day.

China’s impressive military buildup could soon challenge the U.S. across almost every domain.  Key advancements include fielding significant improvements in missile systems, developing 5th generation fighter aircraft capabilities, and growing the size and capability of the Chinese navy, to include their first-ever overseas base in the port of Djibouti.  They are also heavily investing into the next wave of military technologies, including hypersonic missiles, advanced space and cyber capabilities, and artificial intelligence.  If the U.S. does not keep pace, PACOM will struggle to compete with the People’s Liberation Army on future battlefields.

China’s ongoing military buildup, advancement, and modernization are core elements of their strategy to supplant the U.S. as the security partner of choice for countries in the Indo-Pacific, but China also holds clear global ambitions.  But don’t take my word for it.  Just listen to what China says itself:  At the 19th Party Congress, President Xi stated he wanted China to develop a “world class” military and become a “global leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence.”

China’s intent is crystal clear.  We ignore it at our peril.

The erectile procedure involves a complex action or hormones, downtownsault.org generic levitra psyche, nerves, arteries, blood circulation, physical ability etc. Tests Along with physical exam some tests may be needed to be levitra vardenafil 20mg done depending on patient’s history, symptoms, and findings from the physical exam. This cost levitra lowest takes place because the workouts in this web page were cautiously designed to perform not only for Corpus Carvenosa but also with Corpus Spongisum and Carvenosal Artery. Therefore, Musli Strong and Night Fire capsules are the best herbal remedies downtownsault.org cialis 20 mg for weak ejaculation cure. These types of aspirational goals could be appropriate for a nation of China’s stature, but judging by China’s regional behavior, I’m concerned China will now work to undermine the rules-based international order – not just in the Indo-Pacific, but on a global scale – as China expands is presence in Central Asia, the Arctic, Africa, South America, and Europe.

This increasingly competitive environment necessitates continued dialogue between the U.S. and Chinese militaries to improve understanding and reduce risk.  For PACOM, my goal remains to convince China that its best future comes from peaceful cooperation and meaningful participation in the current free and open international order and honoring its international commitments.  After all, the Chinese economic miracle could not have happened without the rules-based order the region has long supported.  But I’ve also been loud and clear that we won’t allow the shared domains to be closed down unilaterally, so we’ll cooperate where we can, but remain ready to confront where we must.

Russian operations and engagements throughout the Indo-Pacific continue to rise, both to advance their own strategic interests and to undermine U.S. interests.  Russia intends to impose additional costs on the U.S. whenever and wherever possible by playing the role of spoiler, especially with respect to the DPRK.  Russia also sees economic opportunities to not only build markets for energy exports, but also to build – or in some cases rebuild – arms sales relationships in the region.

Of particular note are Russian efforts to build presence and influence in the high north.  Russia has more bases north of the Arctic Circle than all other countries combined, and is building more with distinctly military capabilities.

In the PACOM AOR, one event dominated the counterterrorism fight in 2017: the siege by ISIS in the Philippines and recapture by government forces of the Philippine city of Marawi.  It was both symbolic of the larger struggle against violent extremism and also an anomaly characterized by unique circumstances and opportunities.

Marawi underscores two important themes with regard to defeating ISIS in the Indo-Pacific.  First, localized threats can quickly transform into international causes.  An early and effective response is vital to control the fight and own the narrative.

Second, counterterrorism operations are extremely challenging and most regional forces are poorly equipped for such fights.  Our engagement strategy and capacity-building efforts have remained – and will continue to remain – focused on enabling regional counterterrorism forces to win whatever fights they face.  Through multinational collaboration, we can eliminate ISIS before it spreads further in the area.

Every day, our allies and partners join us in addressing these global challenges to defend freedom, deter war, and maintain the rules which underwrite a free and open international order.  These mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships provide a durable, asymmetric strategic advantage that no competitor or rival can match.

In the Indo-Pacific, our alliance with Australia continues to anchor peace and stability in the region with increased collaboration in counterterrorism, space, cyber, integrated air/missile defense, and regional capacity building.  Our alliance with South Korea is ironclad and our alliance with Japan has never been stronger.  The attack on Marawi City served as a reminder of the value of our alliance to Philippine security and stability.  And we’ve reinvigorated our alliance with Thailand through continued engagement with military leadership to promote regional security and healthy civil-military relations.

We’ve also advanced our partnerships with India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and many others who are dedicated to the principles of longstanding, customary international law.

While U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific are real and enduring, the growing challenges to our interests are daunting and cannot be overstated.  In order to deter conflict initiated by revisionist powers, rogue states, and transnational threats, we must continue to acquire and field critical capabilities.  Our evolving force posture must decrease our vulnerabilities, increase our resilience, and reassure our allies and partners.

America’s resolve is strong, and it is imperative we continue to show our commitment to the region in the years to come.  I ask this committee to continue its support for these future capabilities that maintain our edge and prevent would-be challengers from gaining the upper hand.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Vatican Surrenders to China, Part 2

Photo by Vatican

Pope Francis has reportedly reached an agreement with Beijing allowing the Communist government to appoint bishops.  What are the implications for religious freedom across globe?

Catholicism has survived across two millennia. It endured attempts at eradication by Roman emperors. It outlived a regrettable period when the Vatican functioned as secular state.

The Papacy has arguably emerged as the world’s most respected religious institution because modern Popes understand that the Vatican’s role is to lead in moral matters, not temporal ones.  In that respect, they are directly following the example of Jesus himself.

Christ was born into a particularly troubling time.  According to the New Testament, he was on occasion urged to take a stand on the political issues of the day, particularly the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland. Jesus refused, and set an example of moral leadership that an extraordinary percentage of the world’s population considers to be the guiding light of all mankind.

It appears that Pope Francis has taken a different course than Jesus did. He has espoused views on matters of science, economics, and international affairs. In doing so, his opinions must be judged not as those of a religious figure, but as a political one.

While the Pontiff has been a breath of fresh air in his attempts to reform the administration of the Catholic Religion, his political views are tired, old, and frankly discredited. His immediate predecessors rejected the “Liberation Theology” which describes Pope Francis’s perspective.

Nowadays, you can easily get safed musli products from market and online shop viagra online medical stores. It is (when successfully achieved) akin to a profound state of relaxation, peace http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/09/09/nflde-sezonun-acilis-macinda-heyecan-ve-rekor-vardi/ buy cialis and even bliss. As these amerikabulteni.com prices for cialis are purely herbal with all the natural ingredients they have no side effect. This can add anxiety, stress and depression in your best levitra prices life. Clearly this Pontiff, who has displayed brilliance in his analysis of the course the Vatican must take to restore a connection with estranged Catholics, has not demonstrated a similar mastery of the political issues he has chosen to discuss. There is little evidence that he consulted data, studies, or experts who have views contrary to his that are so much a product of his background.

In his 2015 address to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis spoke of the need for compassion to immigrants. Has he not reflected on the reality that no nation is currently taking in more immigrants, nor treating them better, than the United States?  Shouldn’t he spend more time lecturing the governments that immigrants are freeing from, rather than the governments they are fleeing to?

The Pope has displayed great and justifiable concern for the poor. It appears that he singles out capitalism for criticism. But here his lack of adequate research is manifest. Capitalism has been the most successful system to reduce the number of people in poverty, while redistributionist regimes have failed to do so.  Need examples? Compare the former nations of East and West Germany. Compare North Korea with South Korea. It wasn’t the economy of capitalist America that collapsed, it was the Soviet Union’s.

The Pope is clearly worried about the health of the environment.  There are key areas, deforestation in his home continent of South America being a prime example, that are undeniably vital to the health of the planet.  Rather than concentrate on that, however, he places his trust on increasingly suspect studies about man-made global warming. He has failed to mention that the “solutions” to this unproven issue would devastate the poor that he properly displays so much care for.

Pope Francis is correctly concerned about the dignity of each human life.  What, then, compelled him to visit with the harsh totalitarian leadership of Cuba, but not with the heroic dissidents of that oppressed island nation?  Why did he consent to speak in the shadow of a memorial to Che Guevara, a vicious murderer?

Indeed, in an era when stunning acts of aggression, repression and atrocity are increasing with frightening intensity as a result of the acts of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorist forces, the Pontiff seems to inexplicably concentrate far more on his preconceived notions of the shortcomings of largely peaceful and open democratic western nations.

His surrender to the authoritarian regime of Beijing is an error of historical proportions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Vatican Surrenders to China

Photo by Vatican 

It appears that Pope Francis, the most political pope in modern history, is close to coming to an agreement with Beijing over the appointment of bishops in China. In doing so, he upends over two thousand years of Catholic tradition, and betrays the steadfast loyalty of his faith’s 10 million adherents in that nation.

The government wants Roman Catholics in China to attend only state-sanctioned churches, ruled over by bishops designated by the Communist dictatorship. Underground churches in that country, who brave oppression, continue the religion’s ancient practice of allegiance to the Pontiff, seen as the heir, in an unbroken line stretching back to Peter the Apostle, who was, according to the New Testament, appointed head of the church by Christ himself.

The BBC reports that there are about 100 bishops in the world’s most populous nation, some appointed by the Vatican, others by Beijing. Following four meetings since 2016, an agreement to provide joint authority in the designation of bishops appears to be potentially completed within months.

The LA Times has revealed that a further dramatic reversal of church doctrine was emphasized by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, a close adviser described as “confident” of Pope Francis. Sorondo stated that the Communist giant “is implementing the social doctrine of the catholic Church.”

The move would be an even more significant change to Catholicism’s power structure than that which occurred in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. For the first time in the two thousand year-old history of the Church, the Vatican would cede the power to appoint clergy leaders to an atheist entity. It would also be seen by Christians as a betrayal of  martyrs who gave all for the integrity of Christianity.

Surrendering to Beijing’s demands to have the right to appoint bishops has in the past been severely criticized by some Church leaders, particularly in Asia. The Catholic Herald reports that “ Cardinal Joseph Zen, the most senior Chinese Catholic, has said a possible deal between China and the Vatican would ‘betray Jesus Christ’.
While there are treatments, many men aren’t keen on discussing this problem with doctors, therefore aren’t aware that there are no versions, generic or otherwise available for online doctor viagra http://valsonindia.com/products/. A common injection Prostaglandin E1 can be taken. * Muse System: In the remedy Prostaglandin E1 is used but a pellet, form medicine is put in the urethra unlike injection to enhance erection power Being a gel form, it easily dissolves viagra buy in stomach, and it’s recommended to wash it down with a glass of water. This suggests that microcurrent stimulation, which rapidly lowers electrical resistance at acu-points by using the Acutron Mentor or other microcurrent unit with conductivity meter monitoring, and watching the change in conductivity readings before and after a 6-second stimulation of a set of points. 2) Microcurrent therapies: emerging theories of physiological information processing.NeuroRehabilitation, 17(1):3-7, 2002, by Ray Smith Smith lists many research citations that explain about the 3 viagra pfizer pharmacie known systems of. This kind of cialis generic canada drug you will find with the products we mentioned previously.
In a past interview with The Guardian, Cardinal Zen stated “Maybe the Pope is a little naive, he doesn’t have the background to know the Communists in China…The pope used to know the persecuted Communists [in Latin America], but he may not know the Communist persecutors who have killed hundreds of thousands. Chinese Catholics are free to go to mass and attend government-sanctioned churches, but barred from proselytizing. The state-controlled China Catholic Patriotic Association controls the church and appoints bishops, currently without any input from the Vatican.An “underground” Catholic church exists, with some estimates saying it is larger than the official one, and its members and clergy have faced persecution by authorities. Protestant Christians also face similar challenges…”

As the planet’s most influential religious leader, a surrender by Pope Francis on the issue of the independence of faith groups to appoint their own governing clergy would impact every denomination in every nation.

Many of Pope Francis’ statements have raised serious questions about whether his worldview is sufficiently informed. A U.S. News analysis noted that the Pontiff has not watched television since 1990.

Commentator Wayne Allyn Root  has written that “This pope neither seems to understand, nor care that his views on issues…often put him in bed with atheists and socialists, who don’t believe in God, mock religion and think the Bible is a work of fiction. He crusades for social justice, yet chose to embrace the Castro brothers – evil murderers who have imprisoned, tortured and murdered generations of Cubans for expressing their opinions and questioning the authority of a tyrant…He chose not to visit or even be seen with Cubans imprisoned because of their political views.”

Pope Francis’ lack of a more thorough and well-rounded understanding of the world is leading to exactly the opposite of the goals he, with all good intentions, advocates.

When the Pope ventures into areas beyond his theological expertise, that can cause problems.  Damien Thompson, writing in Spectator writes: “What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him. The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that ‘this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him’. Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that ‘Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism — but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.’”

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Indictments Should End Trump Collusion Charge

Russian government photo

The recent indictment handed down by Robert Mueller exposes the fallacy of the collusion charge against President Trump, and confirms that Moscow is continuing its policy, initiated at the very start of the Russian Revolution over a century ago, to vigorously but inappropriately meddle in the politics of western democracies.

The key portion of the Indictment states that:

Defendant INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC (“ORGANIZATION”) is a Russian organization engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes. Defendants MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA, and VLADIMIR VENKOV worked in various capacities to carry out Defendant ORGANIZATION’s interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 37 2 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 37 the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016. 3. Beginning as early as 2014, Defendant ORGANIZATION began operations to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendant ORGANIZATION received funding for its operations from Defendant YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN and companies he controlled, including Defendants CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC and CONCORD CATERING (collectively “CONCORD”). Defendants CONCORD and PRIGOZHIN spent significant funds to further the ORGANIZATION’s operations and to pay the remaining Defendants, along with other uncharged ORGANIZATION employees, salaries and bonuses for their work at the ORGANIZATION. 4. Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts.

 Robert Barnes, writing for Law and Crime, asks “Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign?… , if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a ‘legal expense.’ Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens.”

The fact that Russia’s latest meddling attempt began in 2014, before the start of the primary season, is highly significant.  When added to the common-sense fact that there is no reason why Putin would want a candidate, such as Trump, who promised to increase the American military and increase U.S. energy production (a major blow to Russia’s dependence on sales of its oil and gas assets for its economic stability) it becomes increasingly evident that the collusion charges were, essentially, little more than the actions of Clinton partisans both within government and the media.  Major news outlets who concentrated heavily but unquestioningly on the charges never analyzed why Putin would prefer Trump to Clinton, who, as part of the Obama Administration, allowed Russia to take the lead in nuclear arms for the first time in history, slashed Pentagon funding, sold 20% of American uranium to Russian interests, and failed to take any substantive response to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

The translated version is levitra properien remedy for 1000 diseases. Once inside the body, they are believed to regulate immune behaviours of cells and help in perfecting the microenvironment generic tadalafil online to initiate the process of regeneration. Other than this, it also thickens the fluid of the generic viagra sales cute-n-tiny.com neck of the womb, making it difficult for the sperm to enter. We have come to know about many reasons browse for more now generic cialis online of the problem, which may involve stress, depression, interpersonal causes, diabetes, hypertension, heart stroke etc. Serious questions have been raised concerning media coverage of the Russian collusion story.

Lee Smith, writing for The Federalist reports that “Half the country wants to know why the press won’t cover the growing scandal now implicating the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice, and threatening to reach the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and perhaps even the Obama White House. After all, the release last week of a less-redacted version of Sens. Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham’s January 4 letter showed that the FBI secured a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to search the communications of a Trump campaign adviser based on a piece of opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Fourth Amendment rights of an American citizen were violated to allow one political party to spy on another. If the press did its job and reported the facts, the argument goes, then it wouldn’t just be Republicans and Trump supporters demanding accountability and justice. Americans across the political spectrum would understand the nature and extent of the abuses and crimes touching not just on one political party and its presidential candidate but the rights of every American.”  It’s Smith’s belief that  “The Media Stopped Reporting The Russia Collusion Story Because They Helped Create It. The press has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its inception. It helped birth it.”

Adding to the growing observation that media reporting, and indeed, advocating, the unsubstantiated allegations against the Trump campaign was both biased and unprofessional is the near-total amnesia about Moscow’s long history of serious meddling in western politics.

In 1983,  John Vinocur wrote in the New York Times: “Over the last two years, the Danish and Swiss governments have exposed attempts by ostensible Soviet diplomats, actually K.G.B. officers, to influence or buy their way into groups trying to block deployment of new medium-range missiles in Western Europe. The cases are the best evidence offered by Western counterintelligence officers who believe that the Soviet espionage agency’s highest priorities in Western Europe include attempts to exploit the disarmament movement…Beyond domestic political sensitivities, another problem acknowledged by counterespionage officials is the fuzziness of Soviet involvement in what the K.G.B. calls ”active measures” -operations to create a political effect abroad, as opposed to collection of information on weapons, politics and technology. Last year in Congressional testimony, the United States Central Intelligence Agency acknowledged its difficulties and echoed those of other Western intelligence services…The C.I.A. has described the World Peace Council, a Soviet front, as receiving over half the $63 million it estimates Moscow provided in 1980 to ‘its 13 major international fronts.’”

A CIA study by Vladimir Bukovsky released to the public in 2008 cites an even older example, documenting Moscow’s well-financed efforts to influence western politics through left-wing organizations in the 1950’s and onward.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Should National Security be a Bargaining Chip? Part 2

Should national security be a bargaining chip in budget negotiations?  The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its examination of this debate.

Writing in Questia, Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. noted: “…any debate about defense spending must address the strategy issue. An assessment of needed military capabilities flows from the national military strategy…Most pundits ignore this critical link, and much of the discussion that takes place in the media fails to note that analysts, in some very significant ways, redefine strategy for the purposes of their arguments. In some cases, this is explicitly defined, but in others, it is implicit and one wonders if the pundits are even aware of the difference between their analyses and the official national strategy.”

A 2015 Heritage analysis by Justin T. Johnson explained: “Instead of arguing the merits of a particular military spending level, much of the debate [revolves] around Democratic opposition to increasing defense spending without proportional increases to non-defense spending. The usual arguments for cutting defense spending will likely pop up as well. But what’s really needed is a more thoughtful debate… The first step is determining the vital interests of the United States. What must we, as a country, protect?…The next step is figuring out what threatens these vital interests…The third step is figuring out how to protect America’s vital interests from both the threats of today and those of the future.

“Once you have a strategy, you need to develop the tools to implement that strategy. For the military, this means figuring out the capabilities and the capacity needed to execute the strategy…Answering questions of capability and capacity will lead directly to a defense budget… [However] Since the imposition of the Budget Control Act in 2011, the base defense budget (excluding war costs) has gone down by 15 percent in real terms, while the threats to U.S. vital interests have, if anything, increased.”

“The prior administration, Congressional Democrats, and Republican budgets hawks adopted the sequester which effectively cut defense spending. The results were disastrous.  When President Obama prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, it allowed ISIS to become a regional power. The former president gave in to Moscow’s demands on anti-ballistic missile defense, and Putin increased nuclear weaponry. Obama refused to confront either Russia or China over aggressive acts in Europe and the Pacific, and these U.S. enemies dramatically ramped up their threats worldwide and expanded their armed presence throughout the planet. Obama withdrew, for the first time since the end of the Second World War, American tanks from Europe, and Putin proceeded to invade and threaten his neighbors.”

President Obama hoped to “Reset” Russian American relations by essentially ceding the lead in military power to Moscow.  His New START treaty gave the Kremlin, for the first time in history, a more powerful nuclear arsenal than Washington. He dramatically weakened the U.S. military presence in Europe.
Price is an important point to be pfizer viagra discount browse description now considered that when Kamagra Chewable effect goes over the tolerance level, then heart/kidney/lungs disorders, eye irritations, etc could occur. This drug is acceptable for those men who are ready to buy the drug at any cost do not touch any machinery after intake of food to effectively cure sexual disorders like semen leaking, premature ejaculation, weakness in male organ, impotence and excessive precum. buy viagra greyandgrey.com If you are suffering from ED then you can easily overcome it by using this product because it interferes with hormones thereby viagra for sale canada resulting in adverse reactions. Ever since that discovery, sildenafil has been used for centuries and so you can be sure about the quality and the efficiency at the time of purchasing sample viagra for free in form of cialis.
President Obama’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was actually the centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes was the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as the primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.”

What was manifestly evident was Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors. Indeed, despite the reduction of U.S. defense spending as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military was forced absorb massive new cuts.

During the Obama Administration, in 2014, former Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)  outlined how deeply American forces had been cut.  The U.S. Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 285; The U.S. Army was reduced from 76 brigades to 45; and The USAF lost about half of its fighter and bomber squadrons.  Remember, in the intervening years since then, U.S. armed forces have become older, absorbed more years of use, and endured further inadequate budgets.

The bleeding continues, as American aircraft and naval vessels become increasingly unsafe due to a lack of parts and maintenance, and our personnel become exhausted from excessive workloads mandated by the reduced numbers of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Meanwhile,  the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists increase.