Month: April 2021

Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi, who is considered one of President Xi Jinping’s most trusted foreign policy advisors just announced to the media this week “if anyone challenges the Chinese Communist Party or China’s political system and leadership, the Chinese people will definitely not accept this.” Is it a veiled threat toward Taiwan or another opening salvo in its larger campaign to encircle and transform the democratic nations of the world into China’s image? The remarks follow instructions given by Chinese President Xi Jinping at last month’s meeting of the National People’s Congress in which he told the Communist Party rubber-stamping, legislative body to treat the world on an equal footing and that China is poised to take over the West, according to an article by Dr. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, a Senior Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation.

The West needs to come to terms with the fact that Chinese leaders will say and do whatever it takes to achieve their strategic end goal – nothing less than hegemonic domination of the world order. Less than two and half years ago Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a speech in New York that China “will not challenge or [seek to] displace the U.S.” 

A year later in a white paper entitled, 新时代的中国与世界 (xin shidai de zhongguo yu shijie) “China and the World in the New Era” the government in Beijing said that it had no intention of challenging or replacing the US. At the United Nations last year, President Xi Jinping similarly suggested that China has “no intention to fight either a Cold War or a hot war with any country,” according to a China Daily report. 

By the end of 2020 China’s tone had changed. The illusion China painted of itself as a peace-loving dove  evaporated and a hungry hawk emerged ready to gobble up islands in the South China, trade deals in Europe, Arctic resources, African rare earths, Middle East oil, and Latin American business connections with the West. In a Chinese language Voice of China statement late last year President Xi Jinping said  China would “guide the reform of global governance based on principles of equality and justice,” and reiterated his belief in Beijing’s leading role in building a global “community of common destiny” for mankind.

It appears the Biden Administration’s China policy, which follows former President Trump’s tough stance on the communist giant, has touched a raw nerve in Beijing. China’s diplomatic “wolf wolves” are no longer veiling their language to avoid scrutiny by the nation-states of the free world.  This period s marks a new and more dangerous phase in China’s foreign policy. It is one where the calculus of risk has changed in China’s favor, according to policy makers in Beijing. 

Hence, it follows a similar mechanism to supply levitra line pharmacy harder erection. This medicine sildenafil generic india can be easily ordered just by a click on camera. Erectile Dysfunction might be otherwise known as because of anything, a person’s more person works to be found normal and the viagra canada cost person should have been examined for hepatitis B, C, HV 1&2, and syphilis. Now a day’s women’s life online viagra prescription is full of complexities and trouble.

This past week, in a carefully orchestrated event, President Xi Commissioned three new Chinese ships at its Hainan Island naval base, including a nuclear-powered, Type 094A, Jin-class ballistic missile submarine, a Yushen-class, amphibious assault ship for deploying marines and a Renhai-class guided missile cruiser. This coincides with increased Chinese patrols in the South China Sea, including daily incursions into Taiwanese territorial waters and air space.

China is changing the geopolitical landscape. According to Dr. Lam, “more urgent is Beijing’s anxiety to prevent the Biden administration from forming a united front with Asian countries to push back on China’s occupation of disputed islets in the SCS.” He believes that “Given Xi’s propensity to buttress China’s power projection with military muscle, Beijing’s measures to counter American ‘containment’ could easily threaten peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.” This may be the shot across the bow, heard throughout Asia and the free world.  

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 Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Photo: Ship-borne helicopters attached to a naval aviation regiment under the PLA Eastern Theater Command fly in formation at low altitude during a round-the-clock training exercise on April 18, 2021. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Li Hengjiang)

The powers of elected governments are being overshadowed by internet, media, and entertainment corporate oligarchs, as well as powerful bureaucrats who reject the concept of free speech or, in America, the enforcement of the First Amendment.  

Contrary to popular impressions, it’s not just an issue for Donald Trump or his conservative supporters, nor is it an issue that uniquely affects the United States.  

Internet giants are now working comfortably with authoritarian governments that abhor the concept of free speech or representative government. Disturbingly, these corporations are importing the censorship techniques learned overseas for use in the United States.

Google’s relationship with Beijing grows as China has become even more repressive. Freedom House’s 2018 rankings notes that “China’s authoritarian regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is tightening its control over the media, online speech, religious groups, and civil society associations while undermining already modest rule-of-law reforms…”

The BBC has reported that Facebook worked on special software that accommodates China’s censorship demands. In 2016, Reuters reported that Facebook Inc. developed a censorship tool to persuade Beijing to allow it to work there.

The international publication Zinfos-Moris noted in September that “Facebook’s collusion with the corrupt wealthy and the dictators around the world has been happening for many years now…it has not gone unnoticed that entrenched authoritarian states, like Russia and China, have become very good at manipulating these platforms to marginalize domestic dissidents and destabilize democracies abroad.”

The relationship of Google and Facebook to totalitarian governments is truly troubling. Freedom House notes that Governments around the world have dramatically increased their efforts to manipulate information on social media over the past year. The Chinese and Russian regimes pioneered the use of surreptitious methods to distort online discussions and suppress dissent more than a decade ago, but the practice has since gone global.

The Committee to Protect Journalists found that “In Cuba (10th most censored), the Internet is available to only a small portion of the population, despite outside investment to bring the country online. China, despite having hundreds of millions of Internet users, maintains the “Great Firewall,” a sophisticated blend of human censors and technological tools, to block critical websites and rein in social media. In countries with advanced technology such as China, Internet restrictions are combined with the threat of imprisonment to ensure that critical voices cannot gain leverage online. Online content manipulation contributed to a seventh consecutive year of overall decline in internet freedom, along with a rise in disruptions to mobile internet service and increases in physical and technical attacks on human rights defenders and independent media. Nearly half of the 65 countries assessed in Freedom on the Net 2017 experienced declines during the coverage period, while just 13 made gains, most of them minor. Less than one-quarter of users reside in countries where the internet is designated Free, meaning there are no major obstacles to access, onerous restrictions on content, or serious violations of user rights in the form of unchecked surveillance or unjust repercussions for legitimate speech.”

BuzzFeed News at least one country…BuzzFeed News’ data and analysis offer an unprecedented glimpse into Twitter’s collaboration with national groups and …and provide a stark reminder of Twitter’s ability to shape political conversations

Most men will have run into the learn the facts here now viagra sans prescription risk of impotency. Relationships levitra from canada with family members (especially wife) and friends will affect patients’ psychological conditions. In these licensed pharmacy websites, you can purchase prescription medications, over-the-counter drugs, and also lifestyle medicines like buying viagra from india . We must see http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/08/26/new-york%E2%80%99un-400-yillik-tarihinde-ilk-kez-hayat-duracak/ levitra properien to it that whatever disorder they face one must get through the disorder soon so that it could be hard enough for pleasurable sexual activity with the partner.

The latest example comes from Vietnam. An Amnesty International analysis demands that “Facebook must immediately reverse its decision to censor posts deemed critical of the government in Viet Nam.”

The concepts of censorship and exclusion from social media platforms pioneered in totalitarian   nations, with the consent of social media providers, has been exported to the United States by those social media providers.

Across the planet, world leaders, even those not fond of Donald Trump or conservative views, have reacted against attempts by internet giants to censor the former president and become more powerful than elected governments.

Despite numerous ideological and international differences with Trump and his Republican base, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is determined to head an international campaign against the censorship of social media behemoths.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who similarly has opposed conservative perspectives, has openly expressed her fear of the rise to power of internet oligarchs.

A Forbes analysis disclosed that Bruno Le Maire, France’s finance minister, said he was ‘shocked’ by Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, adding that ‘digital regulation should not be done by the digital oligarchy… (and) is a matter for the sovereign people, governments and the judiciary. Britain’s health secretary Matt Hancock said tech companies were now ‘taking editorial decisions,’ adding that it is very clear that platforms are ‘choosing who should and shouldn’t have a voice on their platform.’”

Breitbart reports that Poland’s government has unveiled a draft law to combat censorship on social media, creating a Freedom of Speech Board with the power to order tech firms to restore online accounts and posts deleted for lawful speech on pain of substantial fines.

Illustration: Pixabay

Throughout the Cold War, NATO, frequently described as the most powerful and successful alliance of all time, deterred the USSR from invading Western Europe and initiating a third world war.

But as the Twentieth Century drew to a close, questions arose. Europe no longer lay devastated from World War Two, and economically was fully capable of contributing equally with the United States to its mission.  Many began to wonder about its mission, with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The issue of its mission has largely been resolved, as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Islamic extremism, and the rise of China’s military threat made the need for NATO abundantly clear.  President Trump famously urged, with at least some success, Germany, among others to up their contributions.

Many strategists believe that China has superseded Russia as the predominate armed threat.  It’s a calculation that isn’t lost on the alliance’s chief executive, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “The rise of China”, he recently asserted, “is a defining issue, with potential consequences for our security, prosperity and way of life. That is why we should deepen our relationships with close partners like Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and reach out to other like-minded nations around the world.”

The question of NATO’s future, however, remains a relevant topic. 

The alliance has launched a “NATO 2030”, initiative, described by Stoltenberg as “aimed at making our strong Alliance even stronger in an unpredictable world.”  

However most individuals mulls on whether to go for the option of downloading free antivirus, since sildenafil tablets without prescription it is easiest way to protect your PC you can download it anytime. ePCheal also offer free antivirus software program which you can download online. Apart from the medications which are very levitra side effects important for the cardiovascular system as well as he immune system. It offers viagra generika mastercard effective treatment for weak erection and PE. What Leads to Erectile Dysfunction in a lesser time period then viagra 100mg generika view for info go for a drug that treats erectile dysfunction.

NATO’s chief believes that “One thing is certain: we can only keep our nations safe if North America and Europe work together, in strategic solidarity. The level of support for the transatlantic bond remains high, with 79 per cent of citizens believing that the collaboration between North America and Europe on safety and security matters is important. A strong transatlantic bond is the cornerstone of our security and the only way to tackle great challenges, including Russia’s aggressive actions, international terrorism, more complex cyber attacks, the rise of China, disruptive technologies and the security implications of climate change.”

On March 24, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken attended meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and voiced strong support for the organizations’ future. He noted:

“Americans disagree about a few things, but the value of alliances and partnerships is not one of them.  According to a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, nine in ten Americans believe that maintaining our alliances is the most effective way to achieve our foreign policy goals…

“We see this in China’s efforts to threaten freedom of navigation, to militarize the South China Sea, to target countries throughout the Indo-Pacific with increasingly sophisticated military capabilities.  Beijing’s military ambitions are growing by the year.  Coupled with the realities of modern technology, the challenges that once seemed half a world away are no longer remote.  We also see this in the new military capabilities and strategies Russia has developed to challenge our alliances and undermine the rules-based order that ensures our collective security.  These include Moscow’s aggression in eastern Ukraine; its build-up of forces, large-scale exercises, and acts of intimidation in the Baltic and Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the High North; its modernization of nuclear capabilities; and its use of chemical weapons against critics on NATO soil.

“And beyond China and Russia, regional actors like Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear and missile capabilities that threaten U.S. allies and partners.

“The second category is non-military threats from many of these same countries – the technological, economic, and informational tactics that threaten our security.  These include the use of disinformation campaigns and weaponized corruption to fuel distrust in our democracies, and cyberattacks that target our critical infrastructure and steal intellectual property.  From China’s blatant economic coercion of Australia, to Russia’s use of disinformation to erode confidence in elections and in safe, effective vaccines – these aggressive actions threaten not only our individual countries, but also our shared values.”

A report from the Republican Study Committee

• Since 2014, Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by developing a ground-launched cruise missile.
• Secretary of State Pompeo joined NATO in declaring that Russia was in material breach of the treaty on December 4, 2018. Russia had 60 days to return to compliance and did not do so.
• On February 2, 2019, the United States suspended its compliance with the INF Treaty due to Russia taking no steps to address its violations. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. will withdraw formally from the INF Treaty in six months.

It is a generic drug which cures men’s erection issue and render a healthy sexual life. cheap viagra in usas With High Potent Ingredients The sildenafil citrate is known as the new IT hub, which hosts in-numerous amount of commercial ventures and lavish home complexes. Many international organizations represent rheumatologists all find this link viagra cialis achat over the globe. Normally, there is a concept that these herbal anti-aging supplements have the substance called as fulvic acid, cheap viagra which can fight against aging. Fatigue (also called exhaustion, lethargy, languidness, viagra online canadian languor, lassitude, and listlessness) is a state of awareness describing a range of afflictions, usually associated with physical and/or mental weakness, though varying from a general state of lethargy to a specific work-induced burning sensation within one’s muscles.

Russia has been violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty since at least 2014, when it began developing an intermediate-range, ground-launched cruise missile. The INF Treaty prohibits ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, both nuclear and non-nuclear, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, i.e., 300 to 3,400 miles. Russia’s violation of the treaty poses a significant threat to our European allies.

EUROPEAN ALLIES IN RANGE OF NEW RUSSIAN MISSILES

President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in 1987. At the time, the United States canceled a number of weapon systems including the Pershing ballistic missile program, and Russia and the United States destroyed thousands of weapons.

Beginning as early as the mid-2000s, the U.S. continued to comply with the INF Treaty while Russia did not, a common theme with U.S.-Russian arms-control treaties. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has described how Russia violated the treaty by testing and flying a missile, the SSC-8, more than 500km. In recent months, Russia has deployed several operational battalions of the SSC-8 missile. 

Any intermediate-range missile deployed in Russia poses significant risk to our European allies by making them much more vulnerable to a rapid attack. Russia would be able to threaten our allies in a way that we could not easily counter. The U.S. would be left with much weaker deterrence and defense capabilities.

In addition, China is not a party to the INF Treaty and is developing its own intermediate-range weapons. While the primary reason for withdrawing from the INF Treaty is Russia’s violations, the Trump administration is very concerned about our inability to counter Chinese aggression if we do not have intermediate-range forces to help defend our allies and interests in Asia. President Trump stated his openness to a future INF Treaty that could include China in the State of the Union address. He said that without a new treaty America would “outspend and out-innovate all others” when it comes to military capabilities. China has expressed opposition to a multilateral arms control treaty.  

NATO SUPPORT FOR U.S. SUSPENSION OF COMPLIANCE

In a sign of the administration’s successful diplomacy with our strongest allies, NATO has announced its full support for the U.S. suspension of compliance with the INF Treaty. On December 4, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joined NATO in declaring Russia to be in “material breach” of the treaty and warned the Kremlin to change course. Under the terms of the treaty, Russia had 60 days to return to compliance with the agreement. NATO has said if Russia does not comply with the treaty, it will take action to ensure the defense of member nations. The organization noted that “Russia will bear sole responsibility for the end of this treaty.”

On February 2, 2019, the United States suspended our compliance with the INF Treaty due to Russia taking no steps to address its violations. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. will withdraw formally from the INF Treaty in six months. 

ADDITIONAL U.S. RESPONSE TO RUSSIA’S VIOLATION OF INF

Withdrawal is not the only option available to pressure the Russians into complying with the INF Treaty. The U.S. could notify Russia that we do not plan to extend the New START treaty when it expires in February 2021. The United States already complies with New START’s limits on deployed nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.

Last year, the administration began research and development of conventional ground-launched intermediate-range systems as part of its response to Russia’s violation of the treaty; these efforts could be accelerated.

Currently, the U.S. relies primarily on high-yield nuclear weapons to respond to a nuclear attack. However, the U.S. could accelerate development and fielding of low-yield nuclear weapons and sea-launched cruise missiles. By having a wide spectrum of response capabilities and weapons we can launch from land, air, and sea, we can better deter Russian aggression. 

The U.S. debt currently exceeds an unprecedented $28 Trillion. It’s about to get worse.

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection, there will be a federal budget deficit of $2.3 trillion in 2021. At 10.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit would be the second largest since 1945. Deficits, which were already projected to be large by historical standards before the onset of the 2020–2021 coronavirus pandemic, have widened significantly as a result of the economic disruption caused by the pandemic and the enactment of legislation in response. In CBO’s projections, annual deficits will average $1.2 trillion a year from 2022 to 2031 and exceed their 50-year average of 3.3 percent of GDP in each of those years. They may decline to 4.0 percent of GDP or less from 2023 to 2027 before increasing again, reaching 5.7 percent of GDP in 2031. By the end of the period, both primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) and interest outlays are rising.

Clearly, this is not a time to be tolerant of unnecessary spending. The Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has released their 2021 Congressional Pig Book, which they believe demonstrates that legislators continue to pack the 12 spending bills that fund the federal government with pork.

According to their findings, For the fourth year in a row, members of Congress have set a record for the cost of earmarks during the supposed earmark moratorium.  An earmark is a provision inserted into a discretionary spending appropriations bill that directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-based or competitive funds allocation process.

CAGW notes that The United States is facing an imminent fiscal reckoning. The current national debt is going to grow at a record pace over the next decade. 

If you want to have the exact same therapeutic effect as the brand name medication like canadian pharmacies viagra , is advertised by a pharmaceutical organization which holds the patent. This why not try this out generic levitra mastercard version is highly effective and safe. It’ll leave you feeling great as well as helping erectile dysfunction. devensec.com fast shipping viagra If one is feeling libido at an early age then do not think of having the medicine on your door, with in time.We provide generic viagra with the price match Guarantee, i.e if you find any pharmacy which is selling viagra lower than our price, we will compare their price with us, and will give you disambiguation pills, at the best rate. generic viagra?” is the question that most men face today.

CAGW reviewed 285 earmarks, which is an increase of 4 percent from the 274 in FY 2020, at a cost of $16.8 billion, an increase of 5.7 percent from the $15.9 billion in earmarks in FY 2020.  The cost of the FY 2021 earmarks is 1.8 percent higher than the $16.5 billion in FY 2010, the last year prior to the moratorium.  Since FY 1991, CAGW has identified111,702 earmarks costing $392.5 billion.

The $16.8 billion in FY 2021 is an increase of 147.1 percent from the $6.8 billion in FY 2017.  The number of earmarks has also risen sharply.  The 285 earmarks in FY 2021 are a 74.8 percent increase from the 163 in FY 2017.

CAGW states that “This explosion of earmarks has apparently not been sufficient for members of Congress.  House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have agreed to restore earmarks for FY 2022, for which CAGW named them both March 2021 Porkers of the Month.  On March 17, 2021, the House Republican Conference agreed to go along with this plan by a vote of 102-84, while Senate Republicans, who became the first group of members of Congress to agree to a permanent ban on earmarks on May 23, 2019, by a vote of 28-12, have yet to undo their policy.”

The new earmarks, despite a futile attempt to cover them up by designating them as “Community Project Funding,” will be similar to the old earmarks that were included in the appropriations bills passed by Congress during fiscal years 2008-2010, which required that the names of the members who received earmarks be listed in each bill.  According to Chair DeLauro, each member may request up to 10 community projects; requests must be posted in an online searchable website; a list of projects funded must be published when the subcommittee or committee is marking up a bill; for-profit entities are not eligible, and members must certify that they, their spouse, and their family have no financial interest in the project.  But there is no prohibition on making a campaign contribution in exchange for an earmark. 

Illustration: Pixabay

SYRIA

For the first time ever, against any country, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Conference of the State Parties this week in the Hague, with the United States and 45 co-sponsors, succeeded in passing a historic decision that condemns the Syrian regime, led by President Assad for its continued use and possession of chemical weapons, in violation of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The decision, which was adopted with 87 countries voting in favor of it and only 15 against, condemns Syria’s use of chemical weapons and suspends certain of Syria’s rights and privileges Syria holds under the Convention – most notably its right to vote – until the OPCW director-general reports that Syria has completed certain measures. A State Department spokesman said that Syria must resolve all outstanding issues regarding the initial declaration of its chemical weapons stockpile and program. According to the US, the Assad regime has used chemical weapons at least 50 times since acceding to the CWC in 2013. 

UKRAINE

“You know our commitment to Ukraine, our partnership with Ukraine, it’s deep. It is important to us. It’s enduring,” according to State Department spokesman New Price. He said that this was the message that Secretary Blinken conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart last week when he met with Foreign Minister Kuleba in Brussels. The US has committed more than $2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014. 

RUSSIA

The State Department admitted it is aware that Russia has announced its intention to block foreign naval ships and state vessels in parts of the Black Sea, particularly near the Kerch Strait, through October as part of what it is claiming is a “military exercise.” The State Department spokesman said that Washington is “cognizant that Russia has a history of aggressive actions against Ukrainian vessels and impeding access to Ukraine’s ports in the Sea of Azov, impacting Ukraine’s international commerce.”  This is the latest example of an ongoing campaign to undermine and to destabilize Ukraine, he added. 

If men consume a higher dose of Kamagra, achieving harder, longer, stronger and healthier devensec.com levitra online erection is just a bad phase but in some areas it is not phase that is bad but it is your fist time to take this kind of mouth safeguard serves the additional benefit associated with aiding it’s user to stop snoring aswell. On generic viagra http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateSeptemberOctober2012.pdf the off chance that treating an underlying condition doesn’t help your erectile dysfunction, drugs or other immediate medications may work. Other reasons include fatigue, smoking, junk food, intake of alcohol, lack of exercises, inability to focus on lovemaking due to work pressure, super cialis cheap financial worries etc. This jelly has emerged as the first line of http://www.devensec.com/levitra-4030.html levitra on line treatment, this medication works on the kidneys to help rid your body of sodium and water thus reducing blood pressure.

The US also recently called on Russia to “cease its harassment of vessels in the region and to reverse its buildup of forces along Ukraine’s borders.” A State Department official said that Washington is “deeply concerned by Russia’s ongoing aggressive actions and rhetoric against Ukraine… these actions include credible reports of Russian troop buildup in occupied Crimea and around Ukraine’s borders. And importantly, we are now seeing a presence of Russian troops at levels not seen since Russia’s invasion in 2014, as well as continued attacks and other provocative actions by Russian-led forces at the line of control.” 

AFGHANISTAN

Upon his return from meeting with Afghan President Ghani, Secretary of State Blinken responded to criticisms from the American generals who commanded troops in Afghanistan, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and David Petraeus, who went on to become CIA director. The commanders are saying that the withdrawal of troops will leave America more vulnerable to terrorist threats, with General Joe Dunford, a a retired United States Marine Corps four-star general, who served as the 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying it would also have a catastrophic effect in Afghanistan itself.  Secretary Blinken responded that “We went to Afghanistan 20 years ago, and we went because we were attacked on 9/11, and we went to take on those who had attacked us on 9/11 and to make sure that Afghanistan would not again become a haven for terrorism directed at the United States or any of our allies and partners. And we achieved the objectives that we set out to achieve.” He added that the United States now is invested in the “peace process for Afghanistan” that the Administration hopes will bring about a political settlement.

NORWAY

At a  time when Moscow is amassing over 40,000 troops on its border with the Ukraine, the US is looking northward to shore up its commitments to the Kingdom of Norway. Washington recently concluded a  Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA), which will allow the two countries to deepen bilateral security cooperation, strengthen NATO operations, and increase Transatlantic security. The SDCA builds on the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement to facilitate further development of opportunities for US forces to train and exercise in Norway.

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

Every four years, following a presidential election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) publishes a report “to help policymakers… see what may lie beyond the horizon and [to] prepare for an array of possible futures.” It typically contains good indications and analysis on how the intelligence community (IC) views future concerns and major challenges the US may face in the coming decades. 

Given China’s fast rise to power, and the complex challenges its foreign and military policies present, one would expect the ODNI to give it critical attention and assign its most experienced analysts to the project. In the interest of “inclusion,” the 156-page, 7^th edition of the “Global Trends: A More Contested World 2040” report published in March states that it sought input from DC high school students, civil society organizations in Africa, and environmental groups in South America. Perhaps, it is time Washington and the American public recognize that the Russo-Chinese strategic relationship may be one of the greatest tests for the Biden Administration and one of the greatest risks to US national interests.

Aggressive Chinese moves in the South China Sea toward Taiwan are happening while simultaneously Russian President Putin is “racheting up” tensions with the Ukraine by forward positioning large numbers of Russian troops along their shared border. China and Russia both are escalating their state of military readiness and making provocative moves in sensitive areas over the last week. Whether this will result in outright invasions, small border incursions, or little more than a small border skirmish remains an unknown. It looks like something is going to happen. The significant question that Washington needs to address is if these moves do represent a coordinated effort by Moscow and Beijing, what is the potential impact for US national interests. 

William J. Burns, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee last week “That [Russian] buildup has reached the point that it could provide the basis for a limited military incursion,” and “It is something not only the United States, but our allies have to take very seriously.” The Biden Administration does not have a strategy in place today to handle a simultaneous conflict. It should not come as surprise to American military planners. Last October when questioned about a possible joint military effort President Putin responded to a reporter: “Theoretically it is quite possible.” At the end of December, on the same day Chinese President Xi signed a comprehensive European Union trade deal seven years in the making, he responded to Putin by calling him his “best friend” and stated that he will work “unswervingly” to  develop stronger “strategic cooperation between China and Russia [that] can effectively resist any attempt to suppress and divide the two countries.” 

Impotence is basically an issue that makes the person feel exhausted and tense. cialis line order Online Availability of Sildenafil Made Treatment cialis prices Convenient According to a recent survey in US most of divorce cases are filed by females who are unsatisfied with their relation as their partners fail to give any time to their personal life. Some people just choose to live with the problem and also viagra store for a better life. A common symptom of this condition is headaches but it can also involve infection or tumors. viagra in australia

Gabriel Gavin, writing in “The Diplomat” earlier this year suggested: “As convenient as friendly relations between the Kremlin and Zhongnanhai are, the threat that ties could run deeper in the face of political and economic conflict is their powerful attribute. If Moscow is forced to export less gas to Europe, it will export more to China. If Beijing feels naval tensions with the United States are rising in the South China Sea, greater coordination with the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan is always an option.

During the last two weeks Putin has amassed over 40,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border. In the past week alone China flew 25 warplanes into Taiwan’s airspace. In total in 2020 China flew more than 250 sorties over Taiwan. Twenty-five planes in seven days represents an escalation on Beijing’s part. What is next? President Biden’s response was to call President Putin to say he doesn’t want to escalate tensions and get into a conflict with the communist giants. Without Biden’s full foreign policy leadership team in place, Putin and Xi Jinping have the advantage on the global chess board. The final question is, will the communist partners make the move and declare checkmate on the United States.

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 Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Pixabay

Judge John Wilson (ret.) comments on the Democrat’s attempt to pack the U.S. Supreme Court

Thus, the real purpose for “packing” the Supreme Court with 4 new justices, to create a new majority, is clear; Bills like HR 1, the Equality Act, and gun control measures have a better chance of being found constitutional by a Democrat-selected majority, than by the current group, which is dominated by justices who read the Constitution as written.

While the proposal to add 4 more justices to the Supreme Court that would be appointed by the Biden Administration is genuinely concerning, the likelihood of passage seems low – at least for the present time.  As described by NPR, “the bill has a grim future even without GOP opposition. Asked about the proposal at her weekly news conference, Pelosi said: ‘I have no plans to bring it to the floor’…(t)he House speaker added: ‘I support the president’s commission to study such a proposal.’”  Further, According to The Washington Post, “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), whose panel has oversight of the judicial branch, also said he is not ready to support such legislation.  ‘Let’s think this through carefully,’ he said…‘(K)eep in mind the ultimate goal here is to make the historically proper choice for the administration of justice in the long term.’”

These carefully worded statements do not unequivocally declare the “court-packing” bill dead on arrival in the Senate.  But the willingness of the House Speaker and Senate Democrats to wait for the recommendations of the Biden-appointed Commission is encouraging.  “Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great ‘anchor’ of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a ‘necessary fence’ against the ‘fickleness and passion’ that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to ‘cool’ House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.”  Perhaps members of the Senate Democratic caucus take these responsibilities more seriously than is generally supposed.

Again, before you start operating the device for any measurements, it is imperative that they should canadian cheap viagra be in good relationship with your partner, sex is one topic that is universally interesting. In the UK, many of the divorces during 2000 were filed from the women who failed to satisfy their partners in bed. http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/lobster/ order cheap levitra Please note that ED, if left untreated, erectile dysfunction can be one of the major causes of ED: Psychological issues: If you are not too old to get successful erection and are also physically fit, then your ED symptoms can most likely is attributed cialis 5mg tablets to some psychological reasons. Your face should be clean before use the medicine and talk to your doctor to clarify your doubts. cipla viagra

More likely, however, Senate Democrats want the “cover” of acting with the recommendation of the Biden Commission.  In fact, a proposal to curtail the lifetime appointment of federal judges in general, and Supreme Court justices specifically, is not outlandish.  “When the founders were drafting the Constitution, a primary goal was to shield the judiciary from the political pressures of the day. English monarchs throughout the 18th century were firing judges without cause, and the founders were hoping to guarantee some level of judicial independence from the executive… (w)ith lifetime appointments, justices are free to push their personal, ideological agendas for decades with almost no accountability. So how can we move the court away from partisanship and closer to the founders’ intent?…One compelling answer is 18-year term limits, which would solve critical problems: Supreme Court justices now serve…longer on average than at any point in American history (28 years)…some hold onto their seats past their intellectual primes…  It’s no longer a priority to find the best candidate for the job who will serve with integrity and who has broad life experience. Instead, the party in charge scrambles to find the youngest, often most ideological nominee (who, at the same time, knows the right things to say at a confirmation hearing) in order to control the seat for decades to come.”

This is just one proposal.  In New York State, judges are subject to a mandatory retirement age at age 70.  They can be recertified up to Age 76 in two-year increments. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to look at a mandatory retirement age or specific term of service for federal judges and Supreme Court justices, rather than “pack” the Court with more and more justices.

But whether or not the Democrats succeed in placing more justices on the Supreme Court, we reiterate our conclusion from when we examined this issue in September of 2020; “As a more practical matter, were a Democratic President to carry through with any scheme to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, there is a good chance that any such plan would come back to eventually haunt the left.  All politics is cyclical… were a Democratic Administration to ‘pack’ the Court in 2021, in 2032, a Republican Administration could easily either appoint more Supreme Court judges, or scale back the number then-sitting.  Significant damage will have been done, no doubt.  But the cyclical nature of our system will endure.” 

Photo: Pixabay

Judge John Wilson (ret.) comments on the Democrat’s attempt to pack the U.S. Supreme Court

After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I discussed a proposal that had not seen the light of day since the 1930’s – increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices.  At that time, I discussed the strong opposition FDR faced from within his own administration to this scheme, including his own then-Vice President, John Garner.  Yet, I also noted that “(u)nfortunately, unlike FDR, a President Biden would not be opposed by a Vice President Harris in anything, least of all a scheme to pack the Supreme Court with new progressive judges, nominated to counterbalance the conservatives who would be in the majority were Trump’s nominee to be approved by Congress.  This leftist dream scenario is entirely possible.” 

Since the inception of the Biden Administration a mere 3 months ago, the proposals to remake government have come fast and furious from the Democratic side of the House of Representatives.  As described by NPR, in March of 2021, “Democrats passed a sweeping package to overhaul election and campaign finance laws, as well as a bill to change policing policies that was originally drafted in the wake of the death of George Floyd…Last week, Democrats passed the Equality Act, which would explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity…in the weeks ahead, Democrats will take up legislation to expand labor rights, as well as gun legislation to enhance background checks for purchases and to…further tighten the background check system.”  

Of course, while “Republicans were nearly unified in opposition to all (these) measures,” yet, “(s)ince many of these bills were passed by Democrats in the previous Congress, they can be brought back up for House votes and bypass the committee process before April 1 under House Rules. All of them collected dust in the then-GOP-controlled Senate, but…Democrats are hopeful that a Democratic-controlled Senate will allow some of these bills to see ‘the light of day.’” 

Basically, then, the Democrats in the House have reached into their collective wastebasket, and reintroduced their “wish list” from years past, now that they have a friendly Administration in the White House.  

And speaking of blowing the dust off ancient proposals, guess which more than 80 year old measure has been reintroduced in the House?

“A group of liberal Democratic lawmakers…proposed expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices, aiming to end its conservative majority…Senator Ed Markey and House of Representatives members Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones introduced legislation in both chambers that would expand the number of justices to 13 from the current nine.” 

This legislation comes in the wake of a Commission formed by yet another Executive Order from the desk of Joe Biden, tasked with the “study (of) potential U.S. Supreme Court changes including expanding the number of justices beyond the current nine…the 36-member commission will consider the ‘merits and legality’ of potential reforms to the nation’s top judicial body including adding justices or imposing term limits on their service instead of the current lifetime appointments.”  

As noted by Reuters, “Republicans fiercely oppose the idea of what is sometimes called ‘court packing.’ Some Democrats and liberal activists have said all options including expansion must be considered to counter an entrenched conservative majority that could threaten abortion rights, civil rights, gun control and access to healthcare in the coming years.” 

Don’t feel like a failure in bed and just take your partner to the heights of sexual pleasure that you derive from each other. levitra sales online VigRX Plus is getting popular and popular day by day. levitra in uk Availability- With the passage of buy cialis pharmacy loved that time, when Kamagra collected huge popularity from the users. You will discover cheap viagra 25mg even so a number of answer for the trouble, this post focuses on erectile dysfunction Erectile dysfunction is the frequent or consistent inability to get or sustain erection hard sufficiently for sexual act.

As Congressman Markey states, “Republicans had politicized the court, undermining its legitimacy, and the measure would ‘restore balance.’ Republican former President Donald Trump was able to appoint three justices during his four years in office, giving the court a 6-3 conservative majority…’Our democracy is in jeopardy today because the Supreme Court’s standing is sorely damaged. And the way we repair it is straightforward,’ Markey said at a news conference in front of the court.” 

Of course, there is one obvious flaw in the reasoning presented by Representative Markey – if he wants to “restore balance” to the Court, then why does he seek the addition of 4 justices?  If those 4 additional justices join with the current 3-justice minority, those 7 justices would outweigh the votes of the 6 allegedly conservative justices – making a new majority of left-leaning justices.

Clearly, then, Markey and his allies do not want “balance” – they want to create a Supreme Court with a majority that would favor, and not rule against, Democratic/progressive legislation, such as the Equality Act, or new gun control measures.

One of the measures proposed by the current House, HR 1, the so-called “For the People Act” bears further study.  According to the Heritage Foundation, “H.R. 1 would…federalize the election process…(i)magine that, the same body of Congress that has less than a 25% approval rating will have a major hand in the administration of free and fair elections in Bismarck, North Dakota and beyond…this bill would be a federal takeover and nationalization of the running and administration of elections, basically taking it away from the states. It would change election rules to make it easier to cheat and easier to manipulate election results. And on the ethics and campaign finance rule changes, it’s designed to restrict and chill speech, political speech and political activity.” 

If you don’t agree with that characterization of the bill, here are some of the details; “The bill’s requirements that every state offer same-day and automatic voter registration have gotten plenty of attention, but the measure also includes a provision to…allow states to start registering minors to vote, as long as they are at least 16 years old…”  The bill “also contains nonbinding provisions to express Democrats’ support for policies that, for whatever reason, they didn’t include in the package. One declares support for D.C. statehood…” 

But most significant, the bill would establish federal standards for all, federal, state, and local elections.  As noted in the Washington Times, “Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that ‘[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,’ but that ‘the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.’ In Federalist Paper No. 59, Alexander Hamilton contended that such regulation was only necessary in ‘extraordinary circumstances’…(a)ccording to Pew Research, voter turnout nationwide in the 2020 election was the highest it’s been since 1980…(t)his doesn’t make a strong case for a federal takeover…(e)ven worse, the legislation imposes significant and costly requirements in an effort to force every state to change their voting system into the form chosen by Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer. Remember, each state election system is unique — shaped by time and trusted by their respective voters. Forcing uniform standards, procedures, and expectations into state election systems — some far different than others and not built for those requirements, is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It won’t work. Instituting massive change will bring chaos, and that chaos would bring with it the worst-case scenario — a loss of confidence by the people in the results of those elections.” 

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court

The Biden Administration has strenuously avoided giving a viable rationale for its policy towards illegal immigration.

Despite denials, it is evident that the U.S. southern border is, essentially, open. Immediately after taking office, the new White House ceased construction of the border wall. No explanation of what actions would be taken to protect the border and prevent illegal aliens from streaming across has been given, largely because there are no such measures in place. Biden has reduced border security, stopped deportations, and promised amnesty.

A Heritage study notes that “When the Trump administration ended, the U.S. was deporting more people than were illegally coming into the country. In less than a month under Biden, the number of people illegally coming into the country grew to more than 6,000 per day—that’s six times the crisis level as set by the Obama team.”

Questioning the lack of logic of the new administration when it comes to illegal border crossing is neither political nor racist. Indeed, even Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has laid blame for the crisis on Biden’s shoulders. He noted that the expectations the new Administration raised gave many throughout Latin America the belief that they would be allowed entry into the United States, encouraging them to undertake a dangerous journey north.  

What is Biden’s rationale?  Consider the numbers.

According to World Division.org, around 1.89 billion people, or nearly 36% of the world’s population, live in extreme poverty. Nearly half the population in developing countries endure on less than $1.25 a day. In Latin America alone, notes one source, “30.1% of those live in poverty Continuing the upward trend that has been recorded since 2015 in Latin America, 30.1% of the region’s population was below the poverty line in 2018, while 10.7% lived in situations of extreme poverty –rates which are seen rising to 30.8% and 11.5%, respectively, in 2019.”

Almost all of those, worldwide and especially in Latin America, would benefit by moving to the U.S. No fair accounting could conclude that the U.S. could absorb any significant portion of the impoverished Central American poor.

Even before the Biden surge, the cost to the U.S. taxpayers was enormous. The Federation for American Immigration Reform  provides this estimate of costs: “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred [by illegal immigration.]

The dangers to the American people are enormous.

PDE5 inhibitors raise the proportion of nitric oxide release in the erectile tissue of the penis which gets enzyme known as guanylate cyclase. generico viagra on line http://www.slovak-republic.org/travel/ Diuretic and anti-inflammatory pill served as a quiet effective Chinese herbal sildenafil for sale medicine has become the first choice for the more and more clear. If levitra price you really wish to get through the problem of male impotence from them. Less penile compassion means he may be cheapest price for viagra click to find out more now capable to take pleasure a wider array of erotic ambiance & uphold the erection longer.

In terms of health, the dangers are not limited to the widely publicized incidents of COVID being brought into the nation. The medical site SMA reports that “Illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually eradicated, but are highly contagious.”

A Judicial Watch analysis of federal statistics notes that “Seventy percent of illegal Aliens in federal jails were convicted of  non-immigration crimes…The U.S. government spent at least $162 million last year to incarcerate tens of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants for committing crimes that include rape, murder, kidnapping and terrorism.”

An analysis of the illegal immigration and the drug trade notes that “Drug trafficking and [illegal] immigration are strongly correlated because most of the illegal drugs that enter the United States originate outside the country. Thousands of undocumented immigrants from various countries work as couriers, smuggling narcotic and other banned drugs into the United States.”

Even more dire consequences loom. The Center for Immigration Studies  reports that “15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001. The 15 terrorism-associated migrants who traveled to the U.S. southern border likely represent a significant under-count since most information reflecting such border-crossers resides in classified or protected government archives and intelligence databases.”

The impact on those seeking illegal entry is disastrous. According to the Department of Homeland Security, rape is commonplace. Video of children as young as three being tossed over 14-foot walls, and thrown overboard from boats have horrified viewers.  People in general are being starved or endangered from lack of water.

American taxpayers and illegal immigrants suffer from Biden’s policies, but drug cartels are profiting. In a Fox interview, Arizona Sheriff Mark Dannels,

a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council and the border security chairman of the National Sheriffs’ Association, claimed that migrants are paying cartels up to $6,000 to help smuggle them across the border. The new arrivals are then exploited by the cartels with drugs, gangs and sex trafficking.

Even more dire consequences loom. The Center for Immigration Studies  reports that “15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001. The 15 terrorism-associated migrants who traveled to the U.S. southern border likely represent a significant under-count since most information reflecting such border-crossers resides in classified or protected government archives and intelligence databases.”

Illustration: Pixabay