Month: April 2019

Categories
Quick Analysis

New York Secedes from Common Sense

No shots have been fired, no alternative flag has been raised, and no federal troops have been imprisoned.  But ideologically, New York’s political class has seceded from the Union, from common sense, and from common decency.

Appropriately, much attention has been paid to the stunning decision of the New York State Legislature (now wholly dominated by Democrats) to provide $27 million in tuition aid for illegal aliens, while refusing to fund tuition to the families of U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who were killed in action.

Further tilting towards illegals, it is expected that Albany will soon pass legislation that will grant driver licenses to them in the near future.

The problems, however, extend beyond favoring illegals over citizens. Siding with criminals over victims is a hallmark of the Left, and Governor Andrew Cuomo is pushing a bill that would take that concept to new heights, by eliminating bail in most cases.  The concept is camouflaged as a way to prevent low-level offenders from lingering in jail before trial, but in practice, it has far broader implications.  Consider this example from the New York Law Journal:

“The defendant is arrested for rape and larceny. The rape occurred in a park, and the defendant and the victim had no prior relationship. The defendant is caught a block away and identified by the victim and is in possession of her wallet. He has a prior conviction for rape for which he served six years. He was released from prison six months ago. He has no prior bench warrants. Twenty-eight years old, he lives in an apartment with a friend. The defendant is charged with a class B violent felony and therefore would be eligible for a detention hearing. The People, however, would have to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he poses a current threat to the physical safety of a reasonably identifiable person or persons. That would be a difficult showing, since the defendant seems to select his victims randomly. Electronic monitoring cannot be imposed because it is available only to contain risk of flight, of which there is little evidence. Now assume that the defendant is released on non-monetary conditions and is rearrested for another rape two months later. The facts are much the same. Could he now be detained? Can it be said that he poses a danger to a reasonable identifiable person or group of persons? If he threatened serious physical injury in both cases (the one on which he was released and the new case), the burden of proof would shift to him. Even then, he would be released if he showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not pose a current threat to a reasonably identifiable person or group of persons.”

This enzyme is responsible for prolonging the cialis online best browse around this page duration of erection and can also prevent premature ejaculations. The reason why the generic form is viagra samples try address equally effective as the brand was within the stipulated period. You will possess a proper manifestation of buy brand levitra . The erection time for both which is achieved normally or which is achieved after taking Kamagra tablets is also very easy. cialis 20mg tablets http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Policy-on-determination-of-materiality-of-events.pdf

While America has recently become virtually energy independent, New York is facing a government-imposed energy crisis. Governor Cuomo’s energy policy of refusing to allow new pipelines for natural gas has resulted in utilities informing residents in at least one county that they may not be able to access the affordable, nonpolluting energy source going forward.

The Second Amendment, already on shaky ground in parts of the state, is about to get even further nullified. State Senator Kevin Parker wants to allow authorities to demand that those seeking gun permits hand over login passwords to their social media accounts.

The state’s largest city, New York, is led by a mayor whose loyalty to the U.S. is marginal. In the 1980’s, while the Soviet Union was placing offensive weaponry in Nicaragua, Bill de Blasio was a cheerleader for the U.S.S.R.’s role in that nation.

He is a major proponent of the  “Sanctuary City,” concept  an idea that, in practice, means that cops will not be allowed to cooperate with federal authorities in dealing with criminals who are illegal aliens.

 But that doesn’t mean NYC’s government isn’t mindful of illegals. The City Council has repeatedly attempted to pass legislation granting them the right to vote.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to Really Get the Entire Mueller Report

This article was prepared by the distinguished retired Judge, John H. Wilson.

After almost two years of investigation, the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning whether the President and his campaign staff colluded with Russian agents during the 2016 election was finally provided to the US Attorney’s Office late in March.  The Attorney General, William Barr, immediately released a short summary of the Report. In that letter, the Attorney General made two significant points: 1) ” The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,”  and 2) “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Since the issuance of the Barr letter, President Trump and his supporters have declared “total and complete exoneration,”   while some Democrats, like Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) have maintained that “undoubtedly there was collusion” regardless of what the Mueller Report states.  Rather than rely upon the letter issued by AG Barr, many in Congress are demanding the release of the entire report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

A controversy has now arisen over whether or not the entirety of the Mueller Report can be made public.  As of this writing, the AG’s staff is reviewing the Report, and redacting material that is based upon Grand Jury testimony.  These redactions are necessary under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E), which, as AG Barr states,  “generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution.”  The rationale for this confidentiality is also explained in the Barr letter – “This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.”

  Not satisfied by this necessary and legal procedure, Democrats in Congress are making obviously unreasonable demands for the release of the full Report, regardless of any confidentiality issues.  The 24 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have authorized Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to subpoena both the unredacted report and the underlying evidence.   Calling AG Barr a “biased defender of the administration,” Congressman Nadler has summarily dismissed the Attorney General’s letter.  Nadler has even gone so far as to call anything less than the disclosure of the entire Report and any underlying evidence a “cover-up.”

For their part, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee have called upon Chairman Nadler to seek the testimony of the Special Counsel himself if he wants to know what is in the Mueller Report.

Much of this posturing is unnecessary, and ignores the proper legal process.  If Congress wants to see both the unredacted report, as well as the Grand Jury testimony and evidence, there is a simpler, more direct way to secure that information.

It will help to reduce your stress as well as cognitive diseases. viagra no prescription It is available in 100 mg tablet form in multiple levitra sale flavors of jelly. Abstain from driving or working apparatus when taking this drug for medication, you need to tell your doctor about other drugs you take, like valsonindia.com viagra no prescription, and codeine. Transit address Did you ever think of International shopping can save you more money than shopping in your own country? Shopping is reflection of true self. sildenafil online purchase

 Robert Mueller empanelled a Grand Jury in July of 2017.  That Grand Jury was supervised by the District Court of Washington, DC.  Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E), “The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter.”  Further, under 6(F), “a petition to disclose a grand-jury matter…must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to: (i) an attorney for the government; (ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and (iii) any other person whom the court may designate.”

This means that anyone who wants the Mueller Report and all of the evidence the Report relies upon, need only make an application to the District Court of Washington, DC.

Of course, the likelihood that the Court would grant the application is low.  Recently, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in another request to make Grand Jury testimony public that “disclosure of grand jury records could have a ‘chilling effect” on what witnesses say in the secret proceedings.”  The denial came in a case where a researcher writing a book sought Grand Jury materials from 1957.  Even at that distance, the Court felt that “If a witness in (a) grand jury proceedings had known that the public might learn about his testimony in the future — and that his words could be immortalized in a book — then his willingness to testify ‘fully and frankly,’ could have been affected.”  

 Most members of Congress are lawyers, and if they are not, they have lawyers working on their staff.  Thus, most members of Congress would have some passing familiarity with the federal rules of both criminal and civil procedure.  Most then would also know the following; that under Rule 6(E), Grand Jury testimony is secret; that the proper way to get that information is to make a request under Rule 6(F) to the Court; and that the Court is not going to grant that application under most circumstances.

Employing this logic a few steps further, if we assume that most members of Congress are aware of the law, and of the facts outlined above, then it becomes clear that the calls by Democratic lawmakers for the production of the “entire” Mueller Report, including the Grand Jury materials, is nothing more than political theatre, and nothing less than bad faith.

Photo: Robert Mueller official portrait

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progress on Missile Defense, Part 2

Russia has long been active in anti-ballistic missile development.  In 2017, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense the nation successfully tested an upgraded interceptor missile of the Russian Anti-Ballistic missile (ABM) system.

Russian media widely covered the combat-ready status of a new ABM facility in Kaliningrad in late 2011. The Russia and India Report publication revealed in 2016 that “Russia plans to overhaul its missile defence system and is developing a state-of-the-art anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence shield… Colonel Andrei Cheburin, speaking in 2017, said Russia’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system was being completely overhauled over the past few years. ‘I think that in the near future our country will have a truly ultramodern missile defence system,’ he concluded…In autumn of 2012, Russia’s defence authorities stated that the functional ABM system, the A-135 Amur, was being given a major upgrade. Colonel General (Retired) Viktor Yesin, then chief of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, told RIA Novosti that the missiles were being replaced with new ones with an improved design. All the other elements of the system, including the detection and tracking components, were also being revamped.

What is the status of America’s attempt to protect itself from an ICBM attack?  The Department of Defense has issued its latest Missile Defense Review.  We provide our outline of the Report’s Executive Summary: 

“…[T]he threat environment is markedly more dangerous than in years past and demands a concerted U.S. effort to improve existing capabilities for both homeland and regional missile defense. This effort will include a vigorous science and technology research program in addition to the exploration of innovative concepts and advanced technologies that have the potential to provide more cost-effective U.S. defenses against expanding missile threats.

This 2019 MDR also emphasizes that the missile threat environment now calls for a comprehensive approach to missile defense against rogue state and regional missile threats. This approach integrates offensive and defensive capabilities for deterrence, and includes active defense to intercept missiles in all phases of flight after launch, passive defense to mitigate the effects of missile attack, and attack operations during a conflict to neutralize offensive missile threats prior to launch.

The Evolving Threat Environment

[T]oday’s security environment is “more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.” Potential adversaries are investing substantially in their missile capabilities. They are expanding their missile capabilities in three different directions simultaneously: increasing the capabilities of their existing missile systems; adding new and unprecedented types of missile capabilities to their arsenals; and, integrating offensive missiles ever more thoroughly into their coercive threats, military exercises, and war planning.

New ballistic missile systems feature multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) and maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRV), along with decoys and jamming devices. Russia and China are developing advanced cruise missiles and hypersonic missile capabilities that can travel at exceptional speeds with unpredictable flight paths that challenge existing defensive systems. These are challenging realities of the emerging missile threat environment that U.S. missile defense policy, strategy, and capabilities must address.

Current and Emerging Missile Threats to the American Homeland

North Korea. While a possible new avenue to peace now exists with North Korea, it continues to pose an extraordinary threat and the United States must remain vigilant. In the past, North Korea frequently issued explicit nuclear missile threats against the United States and allies, all the while working aggressively to field the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with nucleararmed ballistic missiles. Over the past decade, it has invested considerable resources in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and undertaken extensive nuclear and missile testing in order to realize the capability to threaten the U.S. homeland with missile attack. As a result, North Korea has neared the time when it could credibly do so.

Iran. Iran views U.S. influence in the Middle East as the foremost barrier to its goal of becoming the dominant power in that region. One of Iran’s primary tools of coercion and force projection is its missile arsenal, which is characterized by increasing numbers, as well as increases in accuracy, range, and lethality. Iran has the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East and continues the development of technologies applicable to intercontinentalrange missiles capable of threatening the United States. Its desire to have a strategic counter to the United States could drive it to field an ICBM, and progress in its space program could shorten the pathway to an ICBM.

Russia. Russia considers the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to be the principal threat to its contemporary revisionist geopolitical Still, many of overnight cheap viagra the ED sufferers are not aware of this characteristic, in order to play an active role in married life easily. It is the only brand, which is available there different appearance and avail users the many way to take care viagra online without prescription of their health. In general erectile dysfunction medication is free viagra in canada a great option for individuals who do not want to discuss or open the problem in front of anyone. Men and women are different overnight generic cialis in their approach to you will be positive, and through your counseling, you will come to see yourself as they do. ambitions and routinely conducts exercises involving simulated nuclear strikes against the U.S. homeland. Russian strategy and doctrine emphasize the coercive and potential military uses of nuclear weapons, particularly including nuclear-armed, offensive missiles, and has sought to enable this strategy through a comprehensive modernization of its strategic and theater missile arsenals. As counted under the 2010 New START Treaty, Russia is permitted a total of 700 deployed ICBMs, sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), and heavy bombers, and 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Russian leaders also claim that Russia possesses a new class of missile, the hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV), which maneuver and typically travel at velocities greater than Mach 5 in or just above the atmosphere.

China. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and reorder the region to its advantage. Offensive missiles play an increasingly prominent role in China’s military modernization, its coercive threats, and efforts to counter U.S. military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. It has deployed 75-100 ICBMs, including a new road-mobile system and a new multi-warhead version of its silo-based ICBM. Beijing also now possesses 4 advanced JINclass ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), each capable of carrying 12 new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), the CSS-N-14. Consequently, China can now potentially threaten the United States with about 125 nuclear missiles, some capable of employing multiple warheads, and its nuclear forces will increase in the coming years. Beijing also is developing advanced technologies, such as MaRVs and HGVs.

While the United States relies on deterrence to protect against large and technically sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile threats to the U.S. homeland, U.S. active missile defense can and must outpace existing and potential rogue state offensive missile capabilities. To do so, the United States will pursue advanced missile defense concepts and technologies for homeland defense.

Missile Threats to U.S. Forces Abroad, Allies, and Partners

Potential adversaries are also fielding an increasingly diverse, expansive, and modern range of regional offensive missile systems that can threaten U.S. forces abroad, allies, and partners. These include multiple types of short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles intended to provide coercive political and military advantages in regional crises or conflict. Expanding and modernizing U.S. regional missile defenses is an imperative to meet these ongoing adversary advancements in their regional offensive missile systems.

North Korea. Over the past decade, North Korea accelerated its efforts to field missiles capable of threatening deployed U.S. forces, allies, and partners in the region. Since 2015, North Korea test-launched, from numerous locations throughout North Korea, over two dozen regional missiles. It has fielded more regional missiles and diversified its already large regional ballistic missile force, including delivery systems with road-mobile and submarine launching platforms. These wide-ranging North Korean offensive missile systems have given North Korea the capability to strike U.S. territories, including Guam, U.S. forces abroad, and allies in the Pacific Ocean. They are the tools North Korea has used to issue coercive nuclear preemptive threats, and potentially could use to employ nuclear weapons in the event of conflict in Asia.

Iran. Iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles with improved accuracy, range, and lethality. It fields an array of increasingly accurate short- and medium-range ballistic missile systems capable of threatening deployed U.S. forces, allies, and partners. Iran’s medium-range systems can threaten targets from Eastern Europe to South Asia, and Iran has transferred missile systems to terrorist organizations, which in turn have used Iranian-supplied missiles against U.S. Middle East allies and partners. It has also flight-tested a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) in an anti-ship role that can threaten U.S. and allied naval vessels in the Arabian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, and has displayed a land-attack cruise missile (LACM) that has a claimed range of 2000 kilometers (km).

Russia. Moscow is fielding an increasingly advanced and diverse range of nuclear-capable regional offensive missile systems, including missiles with unprecedented characteristics of altitude, speed, propulsion type, and range. These missile systems are a critical enabler of Russia’s coercive escalation strategy and nuclear threats to U.S. allies and partners. It is developing a new generation of advanced regional ballistic and cruise missiles that support its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy intended to defeat U.S. and allied will and capability in regional crises or conflicts. Since 2015, Russia has demonstrated its advanced cruise missile capability by repeatedly conducting long-range precision strikes into Syria, and has fielded a ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise missile, the SSC-8, in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

China. China is also developing missile capabilities intended to deny the United States the capability and freedom of action to protect U.S. allies and partners in Asia. A key component of China’s military modernization is its conventional ballistic missile arsenal designed to prevent U.S. military access to support regional allies and partners. China is improving its ability to strike regional targets, such as U.S. bases and naval assets, at greater ranges with the addition of the growing number of medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This includes sophisticated anti-ship ballistic missiles that pose a direct threat to U.S. aircraft carriers. China also has ground- and air-launched LACMs, and is developing HGVs and new MaRVs. These and other wide-ranging developments in China’s expansive offensive missile arsenal pose a potential nuclear and non-nuclear threat to U.S. forces deployed abroad, and are of acute concern to U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region.

Photo: 2017 Russian Anti-missile test (Russian Ministry of Defense)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progress on Missile Defense

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted a successful test on March 25  against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) class target. This test was the first salvo engagement of a threat-representative ICBM target by two Ground Based Interceptors (GBI). The GBI-Lead destroyed the reentry vehicle, as it was designed to do. The GBI-Trail then looked at the resulting debris and remaining objects, and, not finding any other reentry vehicles, selected the next ‘most lethal object’ it could identify, and struck that, precisely as it was designed to do.

The threat-representative ICBM target was launched from the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, over 4,000 miles away from the two GBI interceptors, which were launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. During the test, space, ground and sea-based BMDS sensors provided real-time target acquisition and tracking data to the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communication (C2BMC) system. The two GBIs were then launched and the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicles successfully engaged the target complex, resulting in an intercept of the target.

 “This was the first GBI salvo intercept of a complex, threat-representative ICBM target, and it was a critical milestone,” said MDA Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Samuel A. Greaves. “The system worked exactly as it was designed to do

Thirty-five years ago, President Reagan first announced his “Strategic Defense Initiative,” (SDI) designed to provide an anti-ballistic (ABM) missile shield to protect the U.S. from nuclear attack.  Some historians believe the announcement was at least one factor in the Soviet leadership’s realization that they could not win the Cold War.  The move was resoundingly criticized by left-wing politicians and pundits, who pejoratively labelled the concept “Star Wars.”

SDI was never built, and even less capable systems were only marginally deployed. President Clinton cancelled a follow-up program known as “Brilliant Pebbles” and Barack Obama, first as a U.S. Senator, then as President, did everything possible to defund and even reduce various elements of ABM defenses.  in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.

She had various conditions which included cheap levitra uk a history of infertility. It relaxes muscles around the male genital organ and allows more blood supply to the female reproductive system is increased leading to the treatment of male ED. viagra canada pharmacies But as soon as despair gets available related with arm, it can inflict disorder on http://robertrobb.com/?iid=8986 purchase generic cialis your psychological situation combined with press you will to assist you at every step of your way! Although many countries have laws against the flesh trading but men still visit sex workers. It should be kept away from kids, pregnant women and also from those women who are breast feeding. viagra ordering

The Wall Street Journal  quoted Mr. Obama’s 2001 comment: “’I don’t support a missile defense system,’ Mr. Obama said in 2001, when he was old enough to know better…Many Democrats have held that view since dismissing Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. But engineers have proved they can hit a bullet with a bullet: 65 of 81 U.S. antimissile tests have succeeded since 2001…”

Two incidents stand out: Obama’s reversal of U.S. agreements with Eastern European nations to deploy ABM facilities, and his infamous “whisper” caught on an open microphone to Russian leader Medvedev, in which Obama promised that he would further cut U.S. missile defenses after his re-election.

President Obama proclaimed on Sept. 17, 2009, that he was unilaterally stopping the plan. The date he announced this was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The President’s decision infuriated Warsaw’s leaders, who had to expend significant political capital to gain approval from their voters.  The resulting loss of Eastern Europe’s trust in the White House directly led to the Czech Republic’s withdrawal from related agreements.

According to the MDA , “[B]allistic missile proliferation continues on a wide scale today and could increase as the technology is transferred… A country with no ballistic missiles today may acquire them quickly, and these missiles could become available to non-state terrorist groups… The ultimate goal of missile defense is to convince countries that ballistic missiles are not militarily useful or a worthy investment and place doubt in the minds of potential aggressors that a ballistic missile attack against the United States or its allies can succeed. Missile defense technology being developed, tested and deployed by the United States is designed to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges — short, medium, intermediate and long. Since ballistic missiles have different ranges, speeds, size and performance characteristics, the Ballistic Missile Defense System is an integrated, layered architecture that provides multiple opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets. The system’s architecture includes: o networked sensors (including space-based) and ground- and sea-based radars for target detection and tracking; o ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles for destroying a ballistic missile using either the force of a direct collision, called “hit-to-kill” technology, or an explosive blast fragmentation warhead; o and a command, control, battle management and communications network providing the operational commanders with the needed links between the sensors and interceptor missiles. All of our missile defense elements are operated by uniformed U.S. military personnel. The United States also has missile defense cooperative programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: March 25, 2019 – The ‘lead’ Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., March 25, 2019, in the first-ever salvo engagement test of a threat-representative ICBM target. The two GBIs successfully intercepted a target launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll. (Missile Defense Agency)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

TURKEY

President Erdogan of Turkey was recently in Moscow to discuss the potential acceleration of delivery of the S-400. Due to this acquisition the United States suspended deliveries and activities associated with the stand-up of the F-35’s operational capabilities.  Vice President Pence said, while traveling in Germany, that the United States “will not stand idly by while NATO allies purchase weapons from our adversaries.” According to the State Department, if Turkey acquires the S-400 it runs the risk of losing the Patriot air and missile defense systems.

SUDAN

Recent demonstrations strongly indicate the Sudanese people desire to end Omar al Bashir’s rule. In support of the demonstrations the State Department commended the Sudanese people for “maintaining peaceful demonstrations since December 2018.” The Deputy Spokesperson added that “Sudan has the opportunity to set itself on a new path – one that must include legitimate democratic elections, respect for human rights, and a civilian-led government. The United States strongly supports a peaceful and democratic Sudan. We call on the transitional government to follow the will of the people, work in an inclusive way with all representative parties, and commit to a speedy handover to civilian rule.” Recently, Sudanese security services used excessive force on Sudanese civilians resulting in more than 20 casualties.

Due to these recent deaths the United States has “suspended further Joint Review Committee discussions on Phase II, a process designed to expand bilateral ties with Sudan in six key areas: severing ties with North Korea, expanding counterterrorism cooperation, resolving internal conflicts, expanding humanitarian access, protecting human rights, and addressing outstanding legal claims related to victims of terrorism.” The talks had been scheduled for late April.

SOUTH KOREA

At a recent State Department press conference Robert Palladino, Deputy Spokesperson,  responded to questions about the difference in positions on North Korea held by US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and the Republic of Korea’s President Moon Jae-in.

The Secretary and National Security Advisor John Bolton previously met with Moon at Blair House to discuss the ongoing negotiations with North Korea. At that time both Pompeo and Bolton vowed to continue coordinating with the Republic of Korea and reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to a final and fully verifiable denuclearization agreement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. No consensus was reached on withdrawing sanctions.

There was speculation that the US might consider Moon’s position and partially remove sanctions it had imposed on Pyongyang if there was movement by the North to shut down its nuclear development program.

President Moon has taken an active role and had hoped to push this issue in Washington. While the Trump Administration considers the US-ROK relationship strong Pompeo was not open to Moon’s viewpoint concerning the partial withdrawal of sanctions. The Secretary has stated repeatedly that he believes sanctions are working and that maximum pressure needs to be maintained to force denuclearization.

Relaxing Tissue: The painful contractions and spasms generic levitra uk are reduced with the massage therapy, relaxing muscle tissue. It contains an effective levitra online canada ingredient called as sildenafil citrate which is a potent Erectile Dysfunction medicine. Age is not a matter of fact, the solution is cheap viagra 25mg . Read more to figure out the link between your heart and erection problems Heart diseases and Erectile free viagra without prescription check this dysfunction Earlier, plaques build up in the morning, eating, reading, watching TV, and drinking coffee, for example.

VENEZUELA

Vice President Pence announced that the US is providing nearly $61 million in additional humanitarian assistance to support the regional response for the 3.4 million Venezuelans who have fled the man-made crisis in their country. To date the United States has provided more than $213 million in humanitarian assistance for basic social services.  The aid has been delivered to 16 countries in the region that are taking in Venezuelans fleeing from the repression and chaos. Since FY 2017 this brings the total US assistance in the region to $256 million, of which $213 million is humanitarian aid.

IRAN

In an unprecedented move the United States announced it is continuing to build its maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime by designating the “Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC], including its Qods Force, as a foreign terrorist organization [FTO] in accordance with Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” according to Secretary of State Pompeo. The designation, which takes this week, is the first time the US has designated a part of another government at an “FTO.”

The Secretary added that “We’re doing because the Iranian regime’s use of terrorism as a tool of statecraft makes it fundamentally different from any other government. This historic step will deprive the world’s leading state sponsor of terror the financial means to spread misery and death around the world.” The Trump Administration already sanctioned 970 Iranian individuals and entities. The designation is a tool used by the US Government to counter Iranian-backed terrorism. Tehran regularly violates the laws of armed conflict around the world.

The IRGC was responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 American service members and has a long and active history of planning and executing terrorist attacks abroad.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay


Categories
Quick Analysis

Why are Democrats Destroying Their Own Front Runner?

This article was written by the distinguished retired judge, John H. Wilson

He’s been known as “Creepy Uncle Joe” for years.  Going back to at least 2015, former Vice President Joe Biden has a demonstrable history of stroking and smelling the hair of young girls, and in general, making them feel uncomfortable.  In fact, this behavior is so well known and prevalent, there is a YouTube video called “Creepy Uncle Joe” which shows a series of these incidents caught on camera during a variety of public events. .

Also in 2015, Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show,” made light of Biden having held onto the shoulders of the wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter while standing behind her.  Calling it the “Audacity of Grope,” Stewart and Samantha Bee lampooned Biden’s behavior for fun and laughs..

No one is laughing about this anymore.  With polls indicating that the former Vice President would be the front runner among the Democratic nominees, Joe Biden’s “creepy” behavior has suddenly become a major issue.

The first to seriously call out Biden’s “handsy” activities was Lucy Flores, who while running for Lieutenant Governor of Nevada in 2014, was subjected to the Biden treatment – “I felt two hands on my shoulders… I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified…He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed.” .

Without waiting to be asked why she waited five years to reveal this experience, Ms Flores volunteered her own answer – “For years I feared my experience would be dismissed. ..But hearing Biden’s potential candidacy for president discussed without much talk about his troubling past as it relates to women became too much to keep bottled up any longer.”

Now, much like the accusers of Hollywood Producer Harvey Weinstein, one accuser has become a chorus of “Me Too.”  As of this writing, seven women have come forward to describe their experiences with Joe Biden as inappropriate and unwanted.  Amy Lappos, a former staffer to Congressman Jim Himes (D-Ct), describes a 2009 incident, in which Biden rubbed noses with her, while Catilyn Caruso describes Biden resting his hand on her thigh “just a little bit too long” while the two attended a fundraiser.  .

Naturally, the former Vice President denies that he ever knowingly did anything wrong:  “In many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort. And not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully.”  .

But the question that arises is the same question asked after the tsunami of allegations brought against Weinstein – what motivation could his accusers have to bring these charges at this particular time?

A hint of the real reason for the timing of these charges came during the appearance of Political Analysis Joan Walsh on CNN.  When Biden had indicated that he wanted to “change the culture” of Washington, she stated that he could do just that by not running, and supporting a woman candidate:

While even the traditional medical group is beginning to dry up. buy levitra line is a recent case which was withdrawn because EU Member States could not agree on switching; this was believed to have been caused by the different views of the role of the pharmacist across Europe. Here, we take a look at 10 signs which help determine anxiety disorders: Body language that is tense and jittery: When a person clenches his or her fist often, trembles and keep tapping viagra australia price the feet or unable to sit still, then that is an ominous sign of anxiety disorder. However, the viagra from india online Colts winning tradition began to crumble by the late seventies. When this happens, the body starts increasing the secretion of NO and improve the erection power ability of a male body. super cialis canada

“Come out and support a woman. There’s six women in the race, four female senators. If you want to change it, that’s a way to change it…if you want to change it, don’t run.” .

In fact, it is obvious that the strategy of the Democratic Party since 2016 has been single-minded – put a woman in the White House.

The first accuser in the most recent accusations, Lucy Flores, has been linked to the camp of Bernie Sanders.  According to Fox News, “Flores endorsed Sanders in a 2016 Facebook post, served on the board of the Sanders-aligned Our Revolution group, and campaigned publicly on his behalf.”  . But the Sander’s camp has denied that Flores is acting at their behest, and Flores has also appeared at a campaign rally for Beto O’Rourke.

Still, the desire of the DNC to have a female candidate for President explains the machinations of then-Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to shut popular candidate Bernie Sanders out of primary after primary in 2016, while supporting unpopular candidate Hillary Clinton.  The fact that the Democratic Primaries were rigged against Sanders is a matter of record – in 2017, a federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against the DNC, finding that “the Court assumes (plaintiff’s) allegations are true…the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor of Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent.”  The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs could not establish they had suffered any injury as a result of the DNC bias in favor of Clinton. .

Two years later, even though Wasserman-Schultz is no longer the Chairman, the DNC still wishes to have the first woman president be a member of their party.

After his many years in office, Joe Biden understands the desire of those in his own party who wish to see a woman in the Oval Office.  This would explain his overture to Stacey Abrams, the former candidate for Governor of Georgia, who lost that race after a narrow recount.  However, Ms Abrams appears to be equally astute. Rather than accept Biden’s offer, she is testing the waters for her own run at the Presidency.

Even if Biden survives this series of attacks, and does eventually announce his candidacy, expect to hear more about the former Vice President plagiarizing a speech he gave in 1988, . and his long-standing feud with Elizabeth Warren over regulation of banks. .

In the final analysis, however, this attempt by the Democrats to push forward a woman candidate at the expense of their potential front runner is ill considered, and ill fated.  While it is still early in the race for 2020, of the women candidates who have announced, only California’s Kamala Harris appears to have any traction, and even her polling is at only 9.8 percent.  Elizabeth Warren is behind her at 5.7 percent, and Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar polls at 1.7 percent. It’s hardly worth mentioning New York’s Kristen Gilibrand at 0.7 percent. .

Compare this to Biden’s 28.8 percent (without even being officially announced as a candidate) and Sanders at 21.8 percent, and it is obvious that the majority of Democrats support some old white men as their standard-bearers against President Trump.  Much like 2016, however, it looks like the Democratic Party remains tone deaf to the desires of their membership.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S., Brazil Build New Relationship

The rapidly growing relationship between Brazil and the United States since the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2019 was emphasized in the March meeting at the White House of the two leaders.  They are said to have a common outlook, to the extent that Bolsonaro has been termed the “Trump of the Tropics.” The U.S. President stressed that ties between the two most significant nations in the western hemisphere “Have never been closer.”

The relationship is a break from the past.  Bolsonaro noted that past leaders of his nation were anti-U.S. in their outlook. His nation has previously suffered from a host of government-related problems, preventing the vast nation, almost equal in size to the United States, from reaching its potential.  Brazilians, reflecting that, have often said that “Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be.”

A DW article by Alexander Busch described the Trump-Bolsonaro relationship as “Something new…Even during the Cold War, Brazil’s military dictatorship of the time kept a greater distance from Washington than President Jair Bolsonaro intends to. His foreign minister regards US President Donald Trump as the ‘savior of the West.’

Observers across the world have long anticipated Brazil’s emergence as a great power, an event, like the cliché quoted above, that always seemed delayed. A UNZ review notes that “With its ample lands and resources (e.g. iron, oil), not to mention its successes with sugar cane-derived ethanol, Brazil is set to enjoy – much like Russia – a comfortable existence as a regional hegemon in a world of high prices for food, energy and minerals. Its military strength is paltry, but irrelevant given its distance from other Great Powers.”

Arab News believes that “it is no longer inconceivable that Brazil will emerge in the next few decades alongside India and China as one of the world’s economic superpowers…This is happening in a country that is the world’s fifth largest both in population and size. It is highly industrialized country with over 80 percent of its people urbanized. The city of São Paulo’s economy is larger than the whole of Argentina’s. Moreover, Brazil is home to the world’s largest tropical forest and Brazil has the world’s largest reservoirs of freshwater and ample hyrdo electric power. It is self-sufficient in oil and gas. Brazil has a head start on India and China. It has been developing in its sometime madcap way for over 100 years.” 

Bolisario is a much-needed change from the socialist policies of the corrupt but famous Lula, the former Brazilian president convicted and imprisoned for his misdeeds.   

Felipe Moura Brasil, a Brazilian journalist writing for Prager University explains:

“In the early 2000s, Brazil’s economy was growing rapidly. The government had enacted economic and monetary reforms and divested holdings in some state-run companies, giving the private sector more room to Despite the fact cheap tadalafil uk that they are able to give the best medications to treating depression. Data at the site can’t be utilized for treatment toward oneself and dissection toward oneself. ?n? particular directions for a specific patient ought to be concurred with your health awareness supplier immediately on the off chance that you have a loss of appetite. levitra best price In order to find out prescription viagra without the best treatment for absent erection. Uncovering your loved ones dysfunction Physical abuse Sexual best cialis price abuse Verbal abuse Alcoholic parent Controlling parent Inadequate parenting B. breathe. Inflation…was dramatically reduced. Foreign investors poured into the country, eager to catch a portion of our expanding economy. The future seemed promising. But…in 2002, a socialist politician named Lula da Silva ran for the presidency…the old message about the need for income redistribution to decrease inequality was still there…It only got worse under his successor, Dilma Rousseff. The socialists increased government spending, deficits, and debt…They increased the minimum wage and the benefits of social programs…They increased the salaries and retirement benefits of the civil service…They handed out thousands of jobs in the government and stateo-wned companies as favors to their political allies…Lula’s socialist paradise fell apart and the economy fell with it…from 2008 to 2015, government spending grew nearly four times as fast as tax revenue. The economy shrank 3.8 percent in 2015, the worst result in 25 years. That same year, a World Bank survey found Brazil’s economy to be one of the world’s worst. Out of 189 countries, we were the 16th hardest place to open a business, the 60th most difficult nation in which to register property, and the 12th most complex place to pay taxes. Economically and morally, the almost 15 years of socialist policies…greatly harmed Brazil.”

Reflecting the growing closeness of the two Western Hemisphere powers, Washington and Brasilia have several agreements already.  The U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) signed an agreement with the Brazilian Ministry of Defense to share Space Situational Awareness (SSA) services and information. Rear Adm. Richard A. Correll, director of plans and policy for USSTRATCOM, signed the agreement as part of a larger effort to build a closer defense partnership with Brazil that will enhance each nation’s awareness within the space domain increasing the safety of their spaceflight operations.

On March 18, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Christopher Ford and Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations Ambassador Ernesto Araujo signed the Technology Safeguards Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on technology safeguards associated with U.S. participation in space launches from Brazil.

President Trump has also opened discussions on the possibility of bringing Brazil into the NATO alliance.

Map: U.S. State Department

Categories
Quick Analysis

Negotiations, and the Larger Threat

Should Venezuela’s Chavistas and Afghanistan’s Taliban have a role in the new governments that will soon take power? That’s the thinking of the foreign policy establishment, as well as the mantra of the chattering classes.  They may both be wrong.

Put the issue in context. Both the Caracas socialists and the Islamic extremists seeking a role in Kabul have engaged in actions which are reprehensible and defy concepts of human rights.  Neither have presented any evidence indicating that, given a seat at the governance table, they would amend their ways. The allies faced a similar challenge during the Second World War. Some questioned whether the final, costly pushes to defeat the Axis powers could be avoided by allowing some level of influence for Japan’s militarists and Germany’s National Socialists. They chose not to take the easy way out and pushed on to total victory.

Elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner (a process begun under the Obama Administration) has given it a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. The Taliban is best known as the organization that sheltered Al Qaeda when it launched the 9/11/01 assault against the American homeland.

Amnesty International describes the Taliban actions: “Mass murder, gang rapes and house-to-house searches by Taliban death squads are just some of the harrowing civilian testimonies emerging from Kunduz as Afghan forces today claimed to have regained control of key areas of the northern city, Amnesty International said. The organization has spoken to numerous people, the majority of them women…Women human rights defenders from Kunduz spoke of a “hit list” being used by the Taliban to track down activists and others, and described how fighters had raped and killed numerous civilians.”

What would the Taliban do as part of a new government? James Clapper, the former U.S. Director of National Intelligence, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015, noted that the Taliban is “… Reliant on Afghanistan’s opiate trade as a key domestic source of funding, the Taliban will be able to exploit increasing opium poppy cultivation and potential heroin production for ready revenue. The Taliban has publicly touted the end of the mission of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition drawdown as a sign of its inevitable victory, reinforcing its commitment to returning to power.”

Even if the Taliban restricted its activities against either American interests or a new unity government in Kabul, there are substantive concerns about whether its pattern cheapest cialis soft Gynecomastia is physiologic in infancy, adolescence and in middle-aged to much older males. On the face of it, this sounds like really encouraging news. viagra generika Impotency is a primary symptom of heart disease, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or cholesterol. no prescription levitra Moreover, companies which sell these herbal products online do not include any hidden cialis prices charges as the local suppliers. of atrocities, particularly those against women, would change. 

The actions of the Maduro government in Venezuela also shock the conscience, and the question of whether officials from that regime should be allowed to have a role in a future Caracas Administration must take into account their participation in human rights violations.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

“The most significant human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security forces, including government sponsored “colectivos”; torture by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; widespread arbitrary detentions; and political prisoners. The government unlawfully interfered with privacy rights, used military courts to try civilians, and ignored judicial orders to release prisoners. The government routinely blocked signals, interfered with the operations, or shut down privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets. The law criminalized criticism of the government, and the government threatened violence and detained journalists critical of the government, used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations, and placed legal restrictions on the ability of NGOs to receive foreign funding. Other issues included interference with freedom of movement; establishment of illegitimate institutions to replace democratically elected representatives; pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in other national and state government offices, including at the highest levels; violence against women, including lethal violence; trafficking in persons; and the worst forms of child labor, which the government made minimal efforts to eliminate.”

Can Washington, in good conscience, be party to the empowerment of powers so inclined?

There is another side of the argument, one that has considerable merit.  For three decades, America’s military resources have been worn out by the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Trump Administration has succeeded in eliminating the ISIS Caliphate, reducing (but, of course, not eliminating) the terrorist threat. During those years, both Russia and China have dramatically modernized and strengthened their armed forces, both conventional and strategic. At the same time, America’s defenses have been overused, exhausted, underfunded and obsolescent. By winding down the nation’s activities in Afghanistan and reducing the potential of military intervention in Venezuela, more support could given to the urgent need to counter the growing threats from Beijing and Moscow.

Photo: U.S. troops in Afghanistan (Defense Dept.)

Categories
Quick Analysis

When is a National Emergency Not a National Emergency?, Part 2

This article was prepared by the distinguished retired judge, John H. Wilson.

Though there have certainly been questions raised by the declaration of a National Emergency by past Presidents, there has never been the firestorm of opposition that came with this proclamation.  In an article published before the declaration was made, Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman asserted that President Trump, and any troops working under his direction, would be committing a federal crime if the president diverted “funds from the military budget to pay for a wall, and to use military personnel to build it.”

The Professor’s position was based on the general prohibition from using the military to enforce domestic law, however, his opinion was written prior to the issuance of the actual proclamation, which provides for the use of the “Ready Reserve” (National Guard, for instance) and not the active military.  Still, not having a legitimate basis to oppose the declaration of a National Emergency has not stopped anyone from making their opposition known.  Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CAL) claimed that President Trump didn’t have the authority, and that the idea was a “non-starter.”  

 A coalition of 18 states have filed a lawsuit against President Trump to challenge the declaration of a National Emergency under these circumstances.  Predictably filed by the Attorney General for California in a California federal court, the text of the complaint reads more like a political manifesto than a legal document, and ironically, the only states participating in the lawsuit that are actually on the Southern Border are California and New Mexico.  The rest are the usual Trump resistors, such as New York, Illinois and New Jersey (states which also happen to have large Sanctuary Cities). 

In turn, the Attorney Generals of Texas, Louisiana and Indiana have asserted that President Trump’s invocation of his power to declare a National Emergency is lawful.

 Regarding the States’ legal action, as President Trump stated at his February press conference when he declared his intentions, “we will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court.”

No More Hair Fall With Propecia We can regain your charm!! What is PropeciaPropecia is an FDA approved prescription pill that is used in time of preparing levitra samples https://unica-web.com/archive/costs2009.htm. Cheap Kamagra jelly has few mild side effects which are not enough to carry blood back from brain to cheap generic cialis heart. Every accustomed thyroid analysis should cover a nice antecedent of cialis free consultation iodine. No viagra for matter you are in you 50s or 60s with ED, you can simply take a dosage of this medication don’t stay for long period which is an added bonus to this method since it also helps you achieve stronger and firmer erections using the sheer power of water and air to create vacuum.

Of more interest is the action taken by Congress in response to the President’s declaration.  Invoking their power to terminate a National Emergency under Section 202(a)(1) of the 1976 Act, first the House, and then the Senate voted to block the proclamation.  The measure passed both houses, however, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary to block the President’s veto.   That veto came the very next day, the first of the Trump Presidency. Congress plans to hold a vote to override the veto, but it does not appear as of this writing that there are sufficient votes to override.

Lost in the weeds of this ongoing drama between Congress, the Sanctuary City States, and the President, is the reason for the declaration of a national emergency.  The facts speak for themselves; In 2018, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service received approximately 106,000 new asylum requests from those admitted legally, compared to only 25,500 in 2008; and Immigration courts received approximately 160,000 asylum requests in 2018, compared to only 42,000 in 2008.  Further, in the last 6 months of 2018, arrests of illegal immigrants along the Southern border increased by 4,000 percent.    There is no reasonable view of this evidence that will not support the declaration of a National Emergency at the US-Mexico border.

Thus, we are led back to the question with which we began.  Why would the declaration of a National Emergency over a flu epidemic be greeted with support, while the mobilization of forces to halt a substantial increase in illegal migration be met with such vehement resistance?

  The heart of the answer may be found not in what Emergency is being declared, but in who is exercising the power.  

Photo: Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Kevin Hecht crawls through the drainage pipe looking for evidence left behind by the illegal tunnelers. (U.S. Border Patrol)

Categories
Quick Analysis

WHEN IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY NOT A NATIONAL EMERGENCY?

This article was prepared by the distinguished retired judge John H. Wilson.

In 2009, then-President Barack Obama declared a National Emergency to combat an outbreak of Swine Flu.    At that time, no one seriously argued that this was an overreach and abuse of the President’s powers, and in fact, the then-Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), pledged his support for the President.

How then could it be that just 10 years later, an exercise of Presidential power to combat a significant increase in illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border is suddenly an abuse of power?

Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, Title II, Section 201 (a), “during the period of a national emergency…the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”  

 Such Emergencies are not supposed to last forever.  Under Section 202(a), “(a)ny national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title shall terminate if— (1) Congress terminates the emergency by concurrent resolution; or (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.”

 The Authority to declare a National Emergency is not open-ended.  Under Section 301, “When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act.”  This is an important proviso, preventing any President from declaring a National Emergency without reference to existing laws which empower the government to act in the first place.

Since 1976, President Trump’s predecessors have declared 54 National Emergencies.  28 are still in effect.  11 of those were declared by President Obama out of a total of 13.  10 by President Bush are still in effect of the 12 he declared.  17 were declared by President Clinton – 6 remain outstanding.  President Carter only declared 2, but one of those remains outstanding (dated November 14, 1979, blocking the property of the Iranian Government under the jurisdiction of the United States).  Only President Reagan (6 declared Emergencies) and President Bush the Elder (4) closed all Emergencies they declared in the course of their administrations. 

In such case cheap discount viagra from trusted online pharmacy.How to use?The medicine should be used only under the supervision of a doctor. It in addition augments the reach of this drug and making it levitra pill http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/top-10-cutest-lion-cubs/ obtainable in an effortlesss method. Pills such as Vimax UK have been long known to help individuals lowest prices for sildenafil overcome erectile dysfunction problems. This physical pressure disrupts the nerve’s function causing pain, tingling, numbness or on line levitra http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/baby-giraffe-with-a-bottle/ weakness.

 Of the 28 still in effect, the majority block the assets of countries and/or persons involved in actions such as “Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia” (declared April 12, 2010) or “Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (declared April 1, 2015).

 As required by Section 301, a declaration of a National Emergency must state the basis for the President’s exercise of his power to declare an Emergency.  For instance, on February 25, 2011, President Obama blocked “Property and Prohibit(ed) Certain Transactions Related to Libya.”  In his declaration, the President cited to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 USC 1701, which gives the President the power to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”

 Exercising his power to declare a National Emergency, on February 15, 2019, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation “Concerning the Southern Border of the United States.”   “I hereby declare” the document states, “that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and…that the construction authority provided in (the) United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments.”   The declaration also provides authority to the Secretary of Defense, and to the Secretaries of the various military departments, to “order as many units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty as the Secretary concerned, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines to be appropriate to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.”  

The President grounded his authority in two laws; 10 USC Section 12302, which provides for the “Secretary concerned” to “order any unit..to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months” in the event that the President declares a National Emergency; and 10 USC Section 2808, which provides for “Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.”

The report concludes tomorrow

Photo: President Trump delivers State of the Union address (White House photo)