Month: April 2018

Categories
Quick Analysis

Inspector General Report on McCabe

Our parent organization, the American Analysis of News and Media, Inc., was formed to provide timely and thorough news analysis to the public. Far too often, news organizations “filter” information through their own ideological lens.  On occasion, to accomplish this goal, we provide, without editorial comment, key reports issued by government agencies. We do so again today. Andrew McCabe was the former Deputy Director of the FBI.  He was fired for misconduct by Attorney General  Jeff Sessions. 

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General has released its report of the investigation of the allegations against concerning former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

This the official summary of the findings:

This misconduct report addresses the accuracy of statements made by thenFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Inspection Division (INSD) and the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concerning the disclosure of certain law enforcement sensitive information to reporter Devlin Barrett that was published online in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on October 30, 2016, in an article entitled “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.” A print version of the article was published in the WSJ on Monday, October 31, 2016, in an article entitled “FBI, Justice Feud in Clinton Probe.”

This investigation was initially opened by INSD to determine whether the information published by the WSJ in the October 30 article was an unauthorized leak and, if so, who was the source of the leak. On August 31, 2017, the OIG opened an investigation of McCabe following INSD’s referral of its matter to the OIG after INSD became concerned that McCabe may have lacked candor when questioned by INSD agents about his role in the disclosure to the WSJ. Shortly before that INSD referral, as part of its ongoing Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the Department and the FBI in Advance of the 2016 Election, the OIG identified FBI text messages by McCabe’s then-Special Counsel (“Special Counsel”) that reflected that she and the then-Assistant Director for Public Affairs (“AD/OPA”) had been in contact with Barrett on October 27 and 28, 2016, and the OIG began to review the involvement of McCabe, Special Counsel, and AD/OPA in the disclosure of information to the WSJ in connection with the October 30 article.

In addition to addressing whether McCabe lacked candor, the OIG’s misconduct investigation addressed whether any FBI or Department of Justice policies were violated in disclosing non-public FBI information to the WSJ.

The OIG’s misconduct investigation included reviewing all of the INSD investigative materials as well as numerous additional documents, e-mails, text messages, and OIG interview transcripts. The OIG interviewed numerous witnesses, including McCabe, Special Counsel, former FBI Director James Comey, and others.

As detailed below, we found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”). Among the purposes of the disclosure was to rebut a narrative that had been developing following a story in the WSJ on October 23, 2016, that questioned McCabe’s impartiality in overseeing FBI investigations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and claimed that McCabe had ordered the termination of the CF Investigation due to Department of Justice pressure. The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation, which then-FBI Director Comey had previously refused to do. The account of the August 12 McCabe-PADAG call, and other information regarding the handling of the CF Investigation, was included in the October 30 WSJ article.
You can take salmon baked with asparagus and cheese or spice it up and take it with green curries. generico cialis on line http://deeprootsmag.org/page/105/ The genital organ gets revitalized for harder and stronger penetration discount viagra sale of the male organ is not called sexual fitness. Obesity could be the one of the factor, which may bring the risk of sexual problem where men browse these guys tadalafil online 40mg are not able to achieve erection which is undoubtedly the first requirement of lovemaking activities. Bpd or manic-depressive disorder, also known as impotence overdue ejaculation it s a phase of incapability to ejaculate during interaction a mate Get More Information cialis for sale canada with negative thought embarrassing panic of affection, anger, enslavement or sensation of rejection a female with pregnancy & lactating holding with mental health It is reported that around 10 to 20 times, it is the mental conditions that affect our erectile function.
We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).

We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

Lastly, we determined that as Deputy Director, McCabe was authorized to disclose the existence of the CF Investigation publicly if such a disclosure fell within the “public interest” exception in applicable FBI and DOJ policies generally prohibiting such a disclosure of an ongoing investigation. However, we concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the CF Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.

The OIG is issuing this report to the FBI for such action as it deems appropriate.

Photo credit: FBI

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Nuclear Posture, Part 2

Yesterday, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government presented the reasons the White House gave that mandated a review of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and international responses to to the report.  Today, we present the specific recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review:

Specifics of the Report

 The report states that “the United States will sustain and replace its nuclear capabilities, modernize NC3, and strengthen the integration of nuclear and non-nuclear military planning. Combatant Commands and Service components will be organized and resourced for this mission, and will plan, train, and exercise to integrate U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear forces to operate in the face of adversary nuclear threats and employment. The United States will coordinate integration activities with allies facing nuclear threats and examine opportunities for additional allied burden sharing of the nuclear deterrence mission…. Given the increasing prominence of nuclear weapons in potential adversaries’ defense policies and strategies, and the uncertainties of the future threat environment, U.S. nuclear capabilities and the ability to quickly modify those capabilities can be essential to mitigate or overcome risk, including the unexpected…The increasing need for this diversity and flexibility, in turn, is one of the primary reasons why sustaining and replacing the nuclear triad and non-strategic nuclear capabilities, (NC3) and modernizing  NC3, is necessary now. The triad’s synergy and overlapping attributes help ensure the enduring survivability of our deterrence capabilities against attack and our capacity to hold at risk a range of adversary targets throughout a crisis or conflict. Eliminating any leg of the triad would greatly ease adversary attack planning and allow an adversary to concentrate resources and attention on defeating the remaining two legs. Therefore, we will sustain our legacy triad systems until the planned replacement programs are deployed.”

Specific weapons systems

“The United States currently operates 14 OHIO-class SSBNs and will continue to take the steps needed to ensure that OHIO SSBNs remain operationally effective and survivable until replaced by the COLUMBIA-class SSBN. The COLUMBIA program will deliver a minimum of 12 SSBNs to replace the current OHIO fleet and is designed to provide required deterrence capabilities for decades.

“The ICBM force consists of 400 single-warhead Minuteman III missiles deployed in underground silos and dispersed across several states. The United States has initiated the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program to begin the replacement of Minuteman III in 2029. The GBSD program will also modernize the 450 ICBM launch facilities that will support the fielding of 400 ICBMs.

“The bomber leg of the triad consists of 46 nuclear-capable B-52H and 20 nuclear-capable B-2A “stealth” strategic bombers. The United States has initiated a program to develop and deploy the next-generation bomber, the B-21 Raider. It will first supplement, and eventually replace elements of the conventional and nuclear-capable bomber force beginning in the mid-2020s.

“The B83-1 and B61-11 gravity bombs can hold at risk a variety of protected targets. As a result, both will be retained in the stockpile, at least until there is sufficient confidence in the B61-12 gravity bomb that will be available in 2020.

“Beginning in 1982, B-52H bombers were equipped with ALCMs. Armed with ALCMs, the B-52H can stay outside adversary air defenses and remain effective. The ALCM, however, is now more than 25 years past its design life and faces continuously improving adversary air defense systems. The Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile replacement program will maintain into the future the bomber force capability to deliver stand-off weapons that can penetrate and survive advanced integrated air defense systems, thus supporting the long-term effectiveness of the bomber leg.

“The current non-strategic nuclear force consists exclusively of a relatively small number of B61 gravity bombs carried by F-15E and allied dual capable aircraft (DCA). The United States is incorporating nuclear capability onto the forward-deployable, nuclear capable F-35 as a replacement for the current aging DCA. In conjunction with the ongoing life extension program for the B61 bomb, it will be a key contributor to continued regional deterrence stability and the assurance of allies.”

Cost

 “…even the highest of these projections place the highpoint of the future cost at approximately 6.4 percent of the current DoD budget. Maintaining and operating our current aging nuclear forces now requires between two and three percent of the DoD budget. The replacement program to rebuild the triad for decades of service will peak for several years at only approximately four percent beyond the ongoing two to three percent needed for maintenance and operations. This 6.4 percent of the current DoD budget required for the long-term replacement program represents less than one percent of the overall federal budget. This level of spending to replace U.S. nuclear capabilities compares favorably to the 10.6 percent of the DoD budget required during the last such investment period in the 1980s, which at the time was almost 3.7 percent of the federal budget, and the 17.1 percent of the DoD budget required in the early 1960s.”

Enhancing Deterrence with Non-strategic Nuclear Capabilities

 Existing elements of the nuclear force replacement program predate the dramatic deterioration of the strategic environment. To meet the emerging requirements of U.S. strategy, the United States will now pursue select supplements to the replacement program to enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of U.S. nuclear forces. It is a reflection of the versatility and flexibility of the U.S. triad that only modest supplements are now required in this much more challenging threat environment.

These supplements will enhance deterrence by denying potential adversaries any mistaken confidence that limited nuclear employment can provide a useful advantage over the United States and its allies. Russia’s belief that limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield weapons, can provide such an advantage is based, in part, on Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage in crises and at lower levels of conflict. Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons. Russia demonstrates its perception of the advantage these systems provide through numerous exercises and statements. Correcting this mistaken Russian perception is a strategic imperative.

To address these types of challenges and preserve deterrence stability, the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. To be clear, this is not intended to, nor does it enable, “nuclear war-fighting.” Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.

Consequently, the United States will maintain, and enhance as necessary, the capability to forward deploy nuclear bombers and DCA around the world. We are committed to upgrading DCA with the nuclear-capable F-35 aircraft. We will work with NATO to best ensure—and improve where needed—the readiness, survivability, and operational effectiveness of DCA based in Europe.

Additionally, in the near-term, the United States will modify a small number of existing SLBM warheads to provide a low-yield option, and in the longer term, pursue a modern nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Unlike DCA, a low-yield SLBM warhead and SLCM will not require or rely on host nation support to provide deterrent effect. They will provide additional diversity in platforms, range, and survivability, and a valuable hedge against future nuclear “break out” scenarios.

DoD and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will develop for deployment a low-yield SLBM warhead to ensure a prompt response option that is able to penetrate adversary defenses. This is a comparatively low-cost and near term modification to an existing capability that will help counter any mistaken perception of an exploitable “gap” in U.S. regional deterrence capabilities.

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Modernization

 Today’s NC3 system is a legacy of the Cold War, last comprehensively updated almost three decades ago. It includes interconnected elements composed of warning satellites and radars; communications satellites, aircraft, and ground stations; fixed and mobile command posts; and the control centers for nuclear systems.
With Forzest 20mg cialis order administration, men can get upset both at physical & emotional levels. Healing mineral water is usually made of genuine Karlovy Vary thermal spring salt. professional viagra online Of course, there are many reasons levitra free consultation which can lead to azoospermia, for example the common genitourinary system disease, and azoospermia caused by this reason is curable. In taking more amount of Kamagra can lead to poisonous outcome and it is better to contact the company when they need to ask questions or cialis overnight when making an order.
 While once state-of-the-art, the NC3 system is now subject to challenges from both aging system components and new, growing 21st century threats. Of particular concern are expanding threats in space and cyber space, adversary strategies of limited nuclear escalation, and the broad diffusion within DoD of authority and responsibility for governance of the NC3 system, a function which, by its nature, must be integrated. In light of the critical need to ensure our NC3 system remains survivable and effective, the United States will pursue a series of initiatives. This includes: strengthening protection against cyber threats, strengthening protection against space-based threats, enhancing integrated tactical warning and attack assessment, improving command post and communication links, advancing decision support technology, integrating planning and operations, and reforming governance of the overall NC3 system.

Nuclear Weapons Infrastructure

 Over the past several decades, the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure has suffered the effects of age and underfunding. Over half of NNSA’s infrastructure is over 40 years old, and a quarter dates back to the Manhattan Project era. All previous NPRs highlighted the need to maintain a modern nuclear weapons infrastructure, but the United States has fallen short in sustaining a modern infrastructure that is resilient and has the capacity to respond to unforeseen developments. There now is no margin for further delay in recapitalizing the physical infrastructure needed to produce strategic materials and components for U.S. nuclear weapons. Just as our nuclear forces are an affordable priority, so is a resilient and effective nuclear weapons infrastructure, without which our nuclear deterrent cannot exist. The U.S. must have the ability to maintain and certify a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. Synchronized with DoD replacement programs, the United States will sustain and deliver on-time the warheads needed to support both strategic and non-strategic nuclear capabilities by:

› Completing the W76-1 Life Extension Program (LEP) by Fiscal Year (FY) 2019; › Completing the B61-12 LEP by FY2024; › Completing the W88 alterations by FY2024; › Synchronizing NNSA’s W80-4 life extension, with DoD’s LRSO program and completing the W80-4 LEP by FY2031; › Advancing the W78 warhead replacement one year to FY19 to support fielding on GBSD by 2030 and investigate the feasibility of fielding the nuclear explosive package in a Navy flight vehicle; › Sustaining the B83-1 past its currently planned retirement date until a suitable replacement is identified; and, › Exploring future ballistic missile warhead requirements based on the threats and vulnerabilities of potential adversaries, including the possibility of common reentry systems between Air Force and Navy systems.

The United States will pursue initiatives to ensure the necessary capability, capacity, and responsiveness of the nuclear weapons infrastructure and the needed skills of the workforce, including the following:

› Pursue a joint DoD and Department of Energy advanced technology development capability to ensure that efforts are appropriately integrated to meet DoD needs.

› Provide the enduring capability and capacity to produce plutonium pits at a rate of no fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030. A delay in this would result in the need for a higher rate of pit production at higher cost.

› Ensure that current plans to reconstitute the U.S. capability to produce lithium compounds are sufficient to meet military requirements.

› Fully fund the Uranium Processing Facility and ensure availability of sufficient low enriched uranium to meet military requirements.

› Ensure the necessary reactor capacity to produce an adequate supply of tritium to meet military requirements.

› Ensure continuity in the U.S. capability to develop and manufacture secure, trusted strategic radiation-hardened microelectronic systems beyond 2025 to support stockpile modernization.

› Rapidly pursue the Stockpile Responsiveness Program established by Congress to expand opportunities for young scientists and engineers to advance warhead design, development, and production skills.

› Develop an NNSA roadmap that sizes production capacity to modernization and hedging requirements.

› Retain confidence in nuclear gravity bombs needed to meet deterrence needs.

› Maintain and enhance the computational, experimental, and testing capabilities needed to annually assess nuclear weapons.

Photo: Unarmed Minuteman missile launch, DoD

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Nuclear Posture

170808-F-CG053-0010

According to the White House “Over the past decade, despite United States efforts to reduce the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons, other nuclear nations grew their stockpiles, increased the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and—in some cases—pursued the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other nations. Meanwhile, successive United States administrations deferred much-needed modernization of our nuclear weapons, infrastructure, and delivery systems.”

Since the end of the first Cold War, the U.S. reduced its nuclear stockpile by over 85 percent and did not deploy any new nuclear capabilities.  Despite that, international adversaries, including Russia, China, and North Korea have significantly enhanced their nuclear arsenals, and Iran has made considerable progress in building an intercontinental missile capability.

In response to those developments, the Administration issued a new “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR.)

The growing problem has been highlighted by Putin’s recent test of its “Sarmat” missile, a hypersonic rocket, and its growing arsenal of Iskander short range nuclear missiles, which violate nuclear arms agreements.  (The New START treaty, signed by President Obama in 2010, gave Russia the lead in nuclear weapons for the first time in history.)

China, too, is undertaking formidable increases in its nuclear weapons capabilities.  The National Interest notes that “technical developments are likely to propel China to undertake a significant nuclear buildup in the coming years. The first of these is China’s acquisition of a viable nuclear triad for the first time… China has now deployed a sea-based deterrent in the form of the JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). China has already commissioned four JIN-class SSBNs and will build at least another one of these vessels. Each Jin-class SSBN has twelve missile tubes and carries JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which have a range of 7,500 kilometers…[also] China is MIRVing its traditional land-based ballistic missiles. According to press reports, earlier this year China tested its DF-5C missile using ten MIRVed warheads. It is also believed to be MIRVing its older DF-5B, with somewhere between three and ten warheads.

It promotes production acquisition de viagra of testosterone and rejuvenates your reproductive organs. Provestra is a actual ablaze way of cheap cialis accretion the animal admiration of the women. In order to have correct treatment with the use of this viagra 100mg pfizer drug. Even the most focused and driven individuals will hesitate to challenge their peers on counterproductive actions and behaviours if they believe those actions and behaviours if they believe those actions and behaviours were never agreed upon in the first place. click this page order levitra online The NPR  Review notes that “While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran…it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so. There now exists an unprecedented range and mix of threats, including major conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, and cyber threats, and violent nonstate actors. These developments have produced increased uncertainty and risk. This rapid deterioration of the threat environment …must now shape our thinking as we formulate policy and strategy, and initiate the sustainment and replacement of U.S. nuclear forces.”

War on the Rocks believes that “the most controversial element of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has been the push to deploy a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead.”

Response to the NPR from potential adversaries has been, as expected, negative. According to China’s Xinhuanet publication, “China firmly opposes the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) published by the United States Department of Defense…The U.S. document presumptuously speculated about the intentions behind China’s development and played up the threat of China’s nuclear strength….”

Russia’s reaction was reported by the Memri news service  “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is primarily concerned by what it described as “Washington’s no-limits approach” of nuclear weapons. “[The U.S.] might use nuclear weapons in ‘extreme circumstances,’ which are not limited to military scenarios in the new U.S. doctrine. Moreover, even military scenarios are presented so ambiguously that it seems like the U.S. planners may view practically any use of military capability as a reason for delivering a nuclear strike against anyone they consider an ‘aggressor’.”

Tomorrow: Specifics of the NPR

Photo: USAF, B-52

Categories
Quick Analysis

Fighting Social Media Censorship

Conservatives are constrained in their attempts to overcome the censorship of social media sites.

Strict devotion to the First Amendment, and opposition to internet regulation prevents them from advocating for government intervention or oversight. Unlike their opponents on the left, they do not believe that any form of speech should be subjected to government control.

The issue is of crucial importance. There is little doubt that the internet is a decisive force in the 21stcentury American politics.  The Pew Research Center  found that 62% of American adults get news from social media. An NYU research project notes that “Our study of search engines suggests that they systematically exclude… certain types of sites in favor of others… giving prominence to some at the expense of others.”

The internet research organization Can I Rank reports that Google “search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant…Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results…the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint.”

The issue began to garner an even greater degree of note when, as reported by Lifesite “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai scolded Twitter…for censoring conservative users of its platform…’ The company has a viewpoint…and uses that viewpoint to discriminate…to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users…’”

In 2016, writes Robby Soave in the New York Post, “Twitter…formed the Orwellian-named ‘Trust and Safety Council’ to propose changes to the company’s use policies… practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech…”
A canadian cialis pharmacy dose is taken in alternating day through injection. Six out of ten insomniacs have stress-related sleep problems and it is very common in check out now viagra uk cheap women. On the inside these individuals circumstances, successful treatment viagra uk online check here pointing to those second option might forestall depression in creating at the time their patient stretches to adulthood. Also, carrying too much buy cialis weight around your waistline can increase your risk for hypertension.
Some have taken to the courts for relief reports Max Greenwood in The Hill. Political consultant Roger Stone has filed a lawsuit against internet giant Twitter, an institution that has been noted for harassing conservative accounts. Twitter gained a great deal of notoriety when one of its employees cut off President Trump’s account. Twitter has openly “purged” conservative accounts on occasion. Similarly, You Tube and its parent corporation Google have been sued by the right-leaning educational site PragerU for censoring its online videos. The blatant nature of You Tube’s bias can easily be discerned by the organization’s use of an extreme left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to decide what constitutes “offensive” speech.

Selwyn Duke proposes in The Hill using antitrust laws, but that runs into conservative objections as well.  “I may object to such things. But here’s the issue: if antitrust laws are unjust, eliminate them. But if we’re going to have them, they should be applied where most needed. As for Google, most people admit it’s ‘a de facto monopoly.’ The breakup of AT&T’s Bell System was mandated in 1982. That came even without Bell denying service to people, blocking their calls or hiding their phone numbers based on the content of their conversations.”

There may be another alternative. Conservatives rightly objected to the dangers of government control inherent in classifying internet providers as “common carriers.”  But, traveling a path as precise as threading a needle, a modified version of the common carrier concept could be applied without the overlay of government control that proponents of the concept maintain is necessary for the more physical world of trains and planes.  That highly modified common carrier concept could warrant—without any other government intrusion, regulation, or oversight– that monopolistic internet giants such as Twitter and Google treat all users equally.

This article, written by Editor-in-Chief Frank Vernuccio, originally appeared in the Washington Times. 

Dept.of Commerce photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Fiction That Is “Net Neutrality”

A guest article by Alex Bugaeff

We hear the term “Net Neutrality” from time to time, but many avoid it as a technical area that they wouldn’t understand. It’s simple, really. It has to do with whether the internet will be controlled by government or left open to the forces of the marketplace.

Information flows through the increasingly busy internet “highway” system. Each new internet innovation, such as video gaming, streaming movies and huge blocks of statistical data, requires more and more of the “highway’s” capacity. That capacity becomes stressed from time to time.

Think of it as the Los Angeles interstate highway network – the more lanes they add, the more cars clog them up. Creating restricted lanes, like HOV lanes, does little good. The government transportation planners impose rule after rule to no avail and public transportation companies lobby to maximize their own interests, the driving public be damned.

Internet policy analysts have defined two sides to the internet control question that roughly correspond to the two sides in the LA traffic condition. On one side, analysts implement government regulation – the equivalent of transportation planners. On the other, they have grouped the existing major private sector players – mostly big internet service providers.

The private companies had been making the rules for the most part, until February, 2015. They engaged in practices such as “throttling” – the slowing of the streams of some sources of data in favor of other sources. Throttling can be compared to hot and cold water faucets with these big companies turning the handles to allow a greater or lesser flow from each, depending on which temperature is of greater benefit at the time.

Such private control of data through the internet has resulted in complaints from small players and government advocates. The small players complain that throttling and other such practices are unfair to those who have little marketplace clout. Government advocates complain that control of such a large and important segment of the economy by big business risks the government losing control.
Cheapest Anti Allergy Pills is actually a succulent which resembles a cactus and mainly found in the region online purchase of cialis of the injury. cheap canadian cialis Mechanism of action: Prostate cancers are sensitive to testosterone and their growth is increased in the presence of the sexual stimulation. You just have to levitra online ensure that you are buying the tablets from any medical store. Since buy viagra australia anti-impotency medicines are serious drugs, the web chemist would ask you send a scanned copy of the prescription via email.
Prior to 2015, the internet was open and operating freely, albeit in a rough-and-tumble fashion at times. Then, after the Congressional election of 2014, the Obama Administration tried to take complete control. The President ordered the FCC to implement the regulations found in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Those regulations had been designed to reign in the monopoly that Bell Telephone had on landline phone circuits. Though outmoded, those regulations gave control of the internet to government.

The White House named this order “Net Neutrality” in an attempt to put a benevolent face on this takeover of internet operations. They claimed that the big companies were stifling innovation and that the regulations would impose a level playing field for the small service providers. The implementation of Title II had the effect of freezing in place the rules which benefitted the big companies and gave the FCC (and its Obama appointees) the power to enforce government regulations as a form of public utility.

In fact, the term “Net Neutrality” appears nowhere in the law or regulations and has no legal definition. It is a fiction designed to serve a larger purpose – government control of communications and internet commerce. So, the 3-2 vote of the FCC after Trump took office merely returned the internet to open and competitive business. Innovation is once again unfettered by government bureaucracy.

And, lest anyone suggest that the big service providers will dampen creativity, one need only look at the development of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to see how the entrepreneurial spirit thrives in the internet world despite the supposed entrenched corporate interests.

A Bachelor’s in Political Science and a Master’s in Public Administration both from the University of California, Berkeley, launched Mr. Bugaeff on a 40 year career in school and governmental consulting and teaching, during which he wrote and published over 100 manuscripts and technical manuals privately for his clients. Along the way, he continued the serious study of early American political history, concentrating on the original letters and writings of the Founders.

U.S. Commerce Dept. Photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

Syrian Crisis a Danger to World

The dangers in Syria may be even more serious than most believe. As tensions escalate over a chemical attack on civilians, the region moves closer to direct conflict between Israeli and Syrian forces, and, most troubling, a potential clash, whether on purpose or accidentally, between American and Russian militaries. The use of outlawed weapons has been a “red Line’ issue for the United States, although President Obama ignored his own ultimatum, and chose instead to believe what turned out to be insincere Kremlin promises to eliminate Bashar al-Assad’s illegal weaponry.

CBS News reports that “Syrian opposition activists and rescuers said …that a poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Douma near the capital of Damascus killed at least 40 people. The alleged attack has been denied by the Syrian and Russian governments. Russia is Syria’s closest ally and has a major military presence in the country. Reports of the latest attack, which appeared to target civilians and young children, could not be independently verified.”

The BBC  reports that “The Syrian-American Medical Society said more than 500 people were brought to medical centres in Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region, near the capital Damascus, with symptoms “indicative of exposure to a chemical agent”, including breathing difficulties, bluish skin, mouth foaming, corneal burns and “the emission of chlorine-like odour”.

Moscow, which denies that the Syrian government is responsible, seeks to be the dominant player in the region for a number of reasons it deems critical. Its economy depends heavily on selling energy to Europe, and a controlling position in the Middle East renders this easier. Additionally, in keeping with even pre-Communist Russian goals, it seeks access to warm-water ports for its navy, which Putin has strengthened significantly.  Assad’s willingness to allow the Kremlin to use Tartus as a major naval base is a key interest. Finally, as Moscow’s position in the area has strengthened, Turkey’s ties to NATO have weakened. Removing the Ankara government from the alliance would be an extraordinary military and diplomatic victory for Putin.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn  notes that “Assad’s principal international backer, Vladimir Putin, hasn’t stopped him from using of them.  [chemical weapons.] Nor has Iran, which is deeply embedded in Syria alongside Assad’s forces.,,It gets even worse, as another rogue state has reportedly facilitated Assad’s acquisition of chemical weapons: North Korea. This facilitation is especially worrisome in light of the two nations’ previous cooperation on a nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israelis in 2007…In March, the U.N. issued a report on North Korea’s active “prohibited military cooperation projects…stretching from Africa to the Asia-Pacific region, including ongoing ballistic missile cooperation with the Syrian Arab Republic and Myanmar, widespread conventional arms deals and cyberoperations to steal military secrets.”

The level of tension can be seen in the statements of world leaders. President Trump called Assad “an animal” for his treatment of his own civilians.  In a tweet, he stated “Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price..”.
Missionary online viagra soft The most important thing you need to know about it. 3. But before taking any type of drug, keep in mind prescription levitra that some experts highlight that it’s not addicting plus it should not result in a . m . tired consequence, like several sleeping treatment meds make. Usually this generic viagra for sale is temporary and blood pressure returns back to normal condition by the application of any other anti-biotic form, at that movement this high potential drug has been prescribed by many physicians to treat erectile dysfunction. The vardenafil tablets india common errors done during the therapy session is the use of Kamagra tablets or oral jelly.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has expressed “deep concern”  over reports of chemical weapons being used. A statement from his spokesperson  Stéphane Dujarric  notes that the “Secretary-General called on all parties to cease fighting and restore the calm that had been in place and adhere fully to Security Council resolution 2401, adopted in February and which called for a ceasefire across Syria.  ‘While the UN is not in a position to verify these reports…the Secretary-General notes that any use of chemical weapons, if confirmed, is abhorrent, and requires a thorough investigation… Mr. Guterres explained that … he has received reports indicating sustained airstrikes and shelling on Douma that have killed civilians, destroyed infrastructure and damaged health facilities. There has also been shelling on Damascus city, reportedly killing civilians…Since 11 March, some 25,000 people have reportedly left East Ghouta, seeking shelter in the rural Damascus villages of Dweir, Adra and Herjelleh.

A separate release  from the UN reports mass evacuations from Syrian cities. “In Idlib Province alone, some 1.5 million people were now displaced in various locations, making it “the biggest refugee camp on earth in many ways,” said Mr. Egeland, who is the Senior Adviser to UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. Mr. Egeland also provided details about the destruction of Raqqa city, once the stronghold of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) extremists, saying that it was even worse than in Aleppo and Homs, two other once-vibrant Syrian cities that have seen massive destruction over the course of the seven-year conflict.”

There is a clear and troubling trend that is becoming increasing apparent, and exceedingly dangerous.  In Europe, Russia has deployed short range Iskander nuclear missiles, in violation of agreements that were signed between President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. It has also invaded neighboring Ukraine, and now occupies Crimea. In the Middle East, it supports the use of outlawed weapons by its Syrian client state. Similarly, it has transferred weapons to Iran, which, through proxies, is directly threatening U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

All this occurs as Putin’s massive arms buildup nears completion, and when American forces, following the Obama disinvestment period, leaves U.S. armed forces at their lowest level of strength in decades.

Moscow’s influence in the Middle East, its intimate alliance with unscrupulous governments in Tehran and Damascus, and its confidence in the capabilities of its strengthened armed forces renders the region a flashpoint for a war that spread far beyond the region.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Citizens Group Rates Congressional Spending

Citizens against Government Waste (CCAGW) has issued its latest analysis of how carefully (or not) members of Congress spent your tax dollars.

The organization rates members on a 0-100 percent scale. “Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19 percent, Hostile; 20-39 percent, Unfriendly; 40-59 percent, Lukewarm; 60-79 percent, Friendly; 80-99 percent, Taxpayer Hero; and 100 percent, Taxpayer Super Hero.”

CCAGW rates just one Senator, Steve Daines (R-Mont.),with a perfect record, while eleven Representatives (Reps. Dave Brat (R-Va.), Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) received a similar rating. The organization gave 30 Senators and 39 Representatives an absolute zero rating.

CCAGW also analyzed ratings based on party affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee. The averages were: Senate Republicans – 88 percent, up 10 percentage points from 78 percent in 2016; Senate Democrats, including Independents – 2 percent, down 13 percentage points from 15 percent in 2016; House Republicans – remained the same at 87 percent; House Democrats – 3 percent, down 3 percentage points from 6 percent in 2016; House Republican Study Committee – 91 percent, up 1 percentage point from 90 percent in 2016.

CAGW gave Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) its March 2018 “Porker of the Month” for giving incorrect information about tax reform. According to the organization. In a joint You tube video with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) claiming that workers would not benefit from the portion of the legislation reducing the tax burden on corporations. The group noted that “Just minutes after Congress passed the tax law on December 20, 2017, Sen. Warren was proved wrong.   Companies began announcing that they were giving $1,000 bonuses to all of their employees.  Other companies raised their minimum wage to $15 per hour, while others beefed up benefit packages and retirement plans.  More than 400 companies and four million American workers have seen and felt direct benefits from the tax law.”

The group also reviews spending-related “victories” and “losses.”

Victories

House

Passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. H.R. 1, which would overhaul the tax code by lowering the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, providing tax cuts to every individual income level, simplifying the tax filing system, doubling the standard deduction, and repealing the Obamacare individual mandate, passed by a vote of 224-201.

Passage of the American Health Care Act. H.R. 1628, which would make broad changes to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, by repealing the individual and employer mandates, as well as most of the Obamacare taxes, passed by a vote of 217-213.

Rollback of Obama-era Regulations through the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The House passed 15 CRA bills to repeal burdensome regulations issued in the waning months of the Obama administration that would have strangled the economy and cost businesses and individuals billions of dollars.

Senate

Passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. H.R. 1, which would overhaul the tax code by lowering the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, providing tax cuts to every individual income level, simplifying the tax filing system, doubling the standard deduction, and repealing the Obamacare individual mandate, passed by a vote of 51-48.
You can opt for this medication if you are suffering from erectile dysfunction take a juice of pomegranate daily. viagra pills from india Liquor, cigarettes and absence of physical viagra 100 mg pdxcommercial.com activities are extra variables of danger. The nursing mothers are also prohibited to be involved in the consumption for https://pdxcommercial.com/property/3201-se-50th-avenue-portland-oregon-97206/ tadalafil online canada the safety of their own homes. Key Roles Health of the Heart There is still cheapest cialis in australia no evidence of side-effect with this weed nor does this weed has any potential danger as far as drug interaction is concerned.
Rollback of Obama-era Regulations through the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The Senate passed 14 CRA bills to repeal burdensome regulations issued in the waning months of the Obama administration that would have strangled the economy and cost businesses and individuals billions of dollars.

Rejection of Unregulated Drug Importation. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget resolution, an amendment offered by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, which cannot be guaranteed to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration, was rejected by a vote of 46-52.

Losses

House

Across-the-Board Cuts to Appropriations Bills. CCAGW rated six amendments to make across-the-board spending reductions in appropriations bills, all of which failed. For example, an amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent across-the-board during consideration of H.R. 3354, the FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill, was rejected by a vote of 156-260.

Dismantling of the Davis-Bacon Act. CCAGW rated four amendments to prohibit funding for the implementation of the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, all of which failed. For example, an amendment offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to prohibit funding for enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act at the Department of Homeland Security during the consideration of H.R. 3354, the FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill, was rejected by a vote of 173-240.

Defunding the Essential Air Service Program. During consideration of H.R. 3354, the FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill, an amendment offered by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) to decrease funding for the Essential Air Service program by $150 million, was rejected by a vote of 140-280.

Senate

Rejection of the American Health Care Act. H.R. 1628, which would make broad changes to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, by repealing the individual and employer mandates, as well as most of the Obamacare taxes, was rejected by a vote of 49-51.

Rejection of a Balanced Budget by 2024. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the FY 2017 budget resolution, an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to gradually reduce the budget deficit to reach a surplus in FY 2024, was rejected by a vote of 14-83.

Rejection of $1 Million in Committee Cuts. During the consideration of H. Con. Res. 71, the FY 2018 budget resolution, an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to require the Senate Health, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to cut spending by $1 million over 10 years, was rejected by a vote of 33-66.

Photo: U.S. Congress

Categories
Quick Analysis

“Anglosphere” Trade Alliance

In a conversation with Dr. John Baker on the Vernuccio-Novak radio program, the distinguished author and legal expert noted that one of the reasons that trade relations with China are difficult is that there are significantly different views between the two nations on essential issues such as intellectual property rights. Similar comments on different trade disagreements have been made in relations between Washington and the European Union, as well as other regions.

Would it make sense for the United States to seek expanded commercial ties with countries that more closely share American values?

The idea has taken hold throughout the “Anglosphere.” Mike Kenny and Nick Pearce, writing in the New Statesman, note that “Among a growing number of conservative-inclined Eurosceptics, the long-standing ambition of an alliance made up of some of the leading English-speaking countries spread across the world has quietly moved from marginal curiosity to a position of respectability. The idea of the ‘Anglosphere’ – and the policies and strategies pursued by some of the political leaders of its constituent countries – has become a source of increasing, almost magnetic influence on British conservatives… The membership list of this club varies quite considerably depending on the author but at its core are the English-speaking ‘Five Eyes’ countries of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Each of these was once a British colony and can readily be situated within an imaginary horizon of a group of countries united by a shared political and economic culture, nourished from the roots of British parliamentary institutions, economic liberalism…”

Duncan Bell, in a 2017 Prospect  article, noted: “… in December 1999, Margaret Thatcher rose to deliver a speech in New York. … The English-speaking world, she proclaimed, had a providential task to fulfil. ‘We take seriously the sanctity of the individual; we share a common tradition of religious toleration; we are committed to democracy and representative government; and we are resolved to uphold and spread the rule of law.’ … she recommended an alliance that would ‘redefine the political landscape’… she was drawing on a proposal that the historian Robert Conquest had sketched in a speech a few months earlier. At a time when the consensus was that Britain’s settled future lay in the EU, Conquest boldly charged that existing international bodies had failed. An alternative was required. He suggested an ‘Anglo-Oceanic’ political association ‘weaker than a federation, but stronger than an alliance.’ It would help bring peace to a violent planet.”
If you are satisfied with information mentioned for the medicine, visit “Cheap cialis canada cheap” to explore further information associated with consumption. Trained practitioners working in the field of acupuncture in Salem, this popular practice can decrease the frequency levitra sale of insomnia for many individuals. Other medications that deal with everything order cialis overnight from acid reflux, asthma, osteoporosis, allergies, and infections are available at significantly reduced rates. This medicament if applied to treat hypertension by the proper medical advice then can protect our heart from these possible threatens we need to treat ourselves with Generic Benicar , as this has been developed as the antagonist to the actions of angiotensin II receptor. viagra generico uk
Graham Leech, in a Cityam study, writes that

“…there are five reasons why the Anglosphere could make geostrategic sense: First is economic exceptionalism. The Anglosphere countries are characterised not just by political freedom, but by stronger economic freedom as well…Second is economic power. The core five Anglosphere economies (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) accounted for 33 per cent of global GDP…Third is soft power. The US and the UK rank first and second in the Portland 30 Index of Global Soft Power, but Canada and Australia are also in the top 10. The Anglosphere countries dominate movies, TV, books and news media, helping to forge a shared identity. Anglosphere brands also dominate global commerce, particularly in the information economy. Fourth is hard power. The Anglosphere countries tend to spend more money on defence as a proportion of GDP. Fifth is the English language. English language usage is in the ascendance. According to the British Council, English is spoken at a useful level by 1.75bn people and this is set to rise to 2bn by 2020. English is likely to be the dominant international language of the twenty-first century, and it is already the lingua franca of academia.”

Commerce Dept. photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

Latest Report on Human Trafficking

Cases of human trafficking jumped by 13 percent in 2017 from the previous year, according to data released by the Polaris  organization.

According to the U.S. State Department  which released its own report on the status of  modern-day slavery in 2017, “traffickers around the world continue to exploit millions of victims in forced labor and sex trafficking. This multi-billion dollar industry destroys families and communities, weakens the rule of law, strengthens criminal networks, and offends universal concepts of human decency… Human trafficking is not analogous to migrant smuggling (a crime against a state by which an individual voluntarily enters into an agreement with another party to gain illegal entry into a foreign country) or employment-related wage and hour abuses (administrative violations of labor law). Under the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), an effective criminal justice response to human trafficking should treat the prosecution of cases as seriously as other grave crimes, such as kidnapping or rape, and impose consequences that are severe enough to be a deterrent… Human trafficking is an assault on human dignity and should be penalized accordingly.

“No government can hold human traffickers accountable or address the needs of victims without stringent and comprehensive human trafficking laws, strong law enforcement and prosecutorial capacity funded with adequate resources, and an informed judiciary. Victims of human trafficking deserve timely and meaningful access to justice through a system that respects rule of law and due process rights. Without these measures, human trafficking will continue to flourish. While governments cannot undo the pain and indignity victims face, they can seek to right those wrongs through official acknowledgment of injustice and by prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing traffickers and those complicit in human trafficking. In taking these measures, governments provide justice for victims, create more stable societies to keep the vulnerable safe, and work towards a world free from modern slavery.”

A United Nations examination of the issue notes: “…many governments are still in denial [about human trafficking.]  There is even neglect when it comes to either reporting on, or prosecuting cases of human trafficking. While the number of convictions for human trafficking is increasing, two out of every five countries covered by the UNODC Report had not recorded a single conviction.

“The most common form of human trafficking (79%) is sexual exploitation. The victims of sexual exploitation are predominantly women and girls. Surprisingly, in 30% of the countries which provided information on the gender of traffickers, women make up the largest proportion of traffickers. In some parts of the world, women trafficking women is the norm.

The second most common form of human trafficking is forced labour (18%), although this may be a misrepresentation because forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Worldwide, almost 20% of all trafficking victims are children. However, in some parts of Africa and the Mekong region, children are the majority (up to 100% in parts of West Africa).

Although trafficking seems to imply people moving across continents, most exploitation takes place close to home. Data show intra-regional and domestic trafficking are the major forms of trafficking in persons.

Major facts on human trafficking in 2017 from the March 2018 Polaris report

  • Reported cases of human trafficking continue to increase each year. In 2017, 8,759 cases were reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline and BeFree Textline. This number compares to 7,737 reported cases in 2016. The overall figures represent an 842 percent increase over the 10 years Polaris has operated the Hotline.
  • The 2017 data spotlights that human trafficking is a thriving business in the United States. Based on the reports and tips made to the National Hotline by survivors, family members, community members, and others, Polaris was able to identify 4,863 suspected traffickers or people likely exploiting victims. Analysis also found 1,698 suspicious businesses that were described as facilitating potential human trafficking reported to the National Hotline. Based on the information provided and consent from the individual providing information, the National Hotline reported 2,910 cases to law enforcement.
  • More survivors are reaching out for help than ever. Based on reports made from family members, community members, survivors themselves, and others, the National Hotline was able to identify 10,615 individual victims of human trafficking in the United States. This represents a 29 percent increase over 2016 when 8,233 victims could be identified. Additionally, 2,144 survivors directly contacted the National Hotline for help, more survivors than ever before. Based on the needs of the survivors who reached out for help in 2017, the National Hotline was able to make 7,832 referrals to services, such as emergency shelter, legal support, and counseling, among other types.

With our new and bigger VigRX Plus formula, we’ve fabricated it alike harder for our competitors to appear alike abutting levitra 20 mg to the after-effects we offer. From indigenous rain forest communities to the high tech modern western world, everybody has their idea of what sets up the libido for a steamy viagra free pill night. Here, the article will tell you some important things that a person taking this medicine should be know about cheap cialis 20mg like- overdose of this medicine (taking more than 1 pill in a 24-hour period, between 30 minutes to one hour. Otherwise, you may have to face lots of complications in his erections which he makes while having a lowest price for cialis sexual intercourse.
At the Bandeu checkpoint in Nepal, inspectors and a police constable approach a bus to look for potential victims of child trafficking onboard. (Picture: OCHA/Tilak Pokharel.)

NATIONAL HOTLINE: 1-888-373-3888 | BEFREE TEXTLINE: 233733 | WWW.POLARISPROJECT.ORG

Categories
Quick Analysis

Don’t Tear Down Statues

The news that some in Arcadia, California wish to tear down a statue of President McKinley, and students at New York State’s Hofstra University are seeking to tear down a statue of no less an American hero than Thomas Jefferson himself, should come as no surprise.

After all, it was less than a year ago that some Chicagoans defaced a bust of the Great Liberator himself, Abraham Lincoln. And, of course, as reported in The Hill last fall, memorials to George Washington were removed from a church he attended in Alexandria, Virginia.

This follows the move to essentially erase recognition of Christopher Columbus, whose voyages initiated the America we now know.

We are told, by advocates of these actions, that these historical figures had flaws.  Of course they had. They were men of their times, not ours.  By the standards of these nihilists, no figure in world history, of any nation, race or creed, deserves any recognition, because all fail to live up to the self-imagined image of perfection that today’s protestors believe they have attained.  Don’t think it will stop with a few explorers or leaders. Some accuse Shakespeare of antisemitism.  Critics of Buddha say he didn’t condemn slavery. Some will say Moses allowed his people to escape slavery in Egypt only to conquer others. Jesus failed to confront Roman imperialists, and so on. Great historical philosophers, scientists, writers, all had character traits that, by modern standards, were seriously wrong.

There is danger in all this.  Many actual and would-be dictatorial regimes share a common impulse to criticize all that came before and hold themselves up as the only path to fair and rational leadership.  Following the Bolshevik usurping of the Russian Revolution, the Communists became intent on establishing the new “Soviet Man.”  Cultural norms, religion, vital parts of Russian culture, were all denigrated as roadblocks to the effort to build a new society.

Similarly, the infamous Nazi habit of book burning was an attempt to erase and reconstruct history in an image more conducive to Hitler’s outlook. Michael Roth, in a Washington Post opinion piece . examines Anders Rydell’s study of the Nazi attempt to eliminate portions of European culture. “The Nazis were bent on creating new know­ledge and not just on destroying their enemies. This was not an issue of mere facts.”

Just as the current center of gravity in the present American trend to erase the past comes from an educational system that deemphasizes or rewrites history, and the students inspired by that effort, so too in the major tyrannies of the 20th Century.
The usual dose of Caverta is 100 mg only once in a time span of cialis discount online 24 hours. But of course, if you think you are best generic cialis becoming paranoid. One cheap discount viagra needs to have an instant cure to it before it s too late. But back to my viagra pills in india point; why didn’t this girl say from the very start that she had a tenant signed up in days.
(Important note: It is absolutely not my intention to compare those who seek to knock down American statues to historical Communists or Nazis. We seek, rather, to outline how their goals and methods have in the past led to disaster.)

In his description of early Soviet educational moves, Angela Marie Cox, in her study “Policy and Practice: Russian and Soviet Education during Times of Social and Political Change” writes:

“As the first Commissar of Education, Anatoly Vasilievich Lunacharsky led a policy of educational revolution to match the comprehensive restructuring taking place in society as a whole. In a speech to the First All-Russia Congress on Education, Lunacharsky declared, “we had to wipe out everything; it was absolutely clear that the school was due for a revolutionary shake-up.”

The United States Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia . notes that “Education in the Third Reich served to indoctrinate students with the National Socialist world view…Schools played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas to German youth. While censors removed some books from the classroom, German educators introduced new textbooks that taught students love for Hitler, obedience to state authority, militarism, racism, and antisemitism.”

Americans should be vigilant against those who seek to denigrate historical figures of great importance.  Those who do so may not understand how dangerous their acts are.

Photo: US Holocaust Museum photo of Nazi book burning