Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Senate passage of the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act” (and the prospects for a fiery debate in the House of Representatives) have brought the contentious issue of illegal immigration to the forefront of American politics. The New York Analysis will take a multi-part look at this vital issue, reviewing the facts behind 21st century immigration, the wide range of opinions about it, current legislation, and possible alternatives.

THE BASIC IDEA

Supporters of S.744 (especially the White House, which lobbied heavily for it) stress that the measure provides increased border security for a conditioned pathway to legal status for illegal aliens, as well as a modernization of the entire immigration process. It’s supported by most Democrats in Congress and a minority of Republicans.

Editorial note: we use the language of the information sources we quote. The terms “illegal aliens” and “unauthorized immigrants” are therefore used interchangeably.

IMMIGRATION FACTS

Before reviewing the details or the politics of the measure, a check of the facts is vital.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Center “The nation’s total immigrant population reached a record 40.4 million in 2011, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center…Over the last decade, the number of immigrants in the U.S. has steadily grown. Since 2007 alone, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. increased by 2.4 million. The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. also grew during the last decade, rising from 8.4 million in 2000 to 11.1 million in 2011…in 2010, there were 1 million unauthorized immigrants under age 18 in the U.S, as well as 4.5 million children whose parents were unauthorized…nearly two thirds of unauthorized immigrants had [as of 2010] lived in the U.S. for at least a decade and…(46%) were parents of minor children. ”

The Migration Information Source reports that Mexicans “constitute the single largest group of immigrants to the United States. 11.7 million Mexican immigrants reside in the United States, representing 29% of the US immigrant population and close to 4% of the overall US population.”

According to the Urban Institute, “Mexicans make up over half of undocumented immigrants–57 percent of the total, or about 5.3 million. Another 2.2 million (23 percent) are from other Latin American countries. About 10 percent are from Asia, 5 percent from Europe and Canada, and 5 percent from the rest of the world…Almost two-thirds of the undocumented population lives in just six states: California (26 percent), Texas (12 percent), Florida (10 percent) New York (8 percent), Illinois (4 percent), and New Jersey (4 percent). But, the most rapid growth in the undocumented population since the mid-1990s has been outside these states.”

While debate exists over the financial implications of illegal immigration, those costs remain considerable. According to a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level [is] about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level.” The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. “Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) notes that an illegal immigrant without a high school degree, which represents the majority, “…will impose a net cost on taxpayers of $89,000 over his or her lifetime.”

The Council of Foreign Relations contends “that America has reaped tremendous benefits from opening its doors to immigrants, as well as to students, skilled employees and others who may only live in the country for shorter periods of time.” But it warns that “the continued inability of the United States to develop and enforce a workable system of immigration laws threatens to undermine these achievements…. According to the report, the high level of illegal immigration in the country is increasingly damaging to U.S. national interests-“[it] diminishes respect for the law, creates potential security risks, weakens labor rights, strains U.S. relations with its Mexican neighbor, and unfairly burdens public education and social services in many states.”

ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONED

The Obama Administration’s enforcement of immigration laws has recently been called into question. In March, Senator Dan Coats (Republican-In) sharply criticized the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) for initiating an order to reduce the population of detained illegal aliens, noting the distress this caused to local communities. Although ICE claimed the release was for budgetary reasons, Coats noted that the agency was appropriated sufficient funds.

S.744 was sponsored by the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan group that included Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain R-Az), Michael Bennet,(D-Col.) Richard Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-Az) , Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) It passed the Senate by a 68-32 margin, but will face a tough time in the House.

The 1,000-plus page bill affects the entire immigration process and issues related to it, including border security and enforcement against illegals. It substantially addresses a broad range of matters related to legal immigration. S.744 alters family and employment-based visa categories, specifies due-process protection, and broadens the availability of nonimmigrant foreign workers. It provides legal status to illegals.

The measure requires that a series of “triggers,” (enforcement measures) take effect before the legalization process begins. The DREAM Act (“Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) and the AGJOBS (Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act) are incorporated into S. 744.

It also affects matters related to immigrant removal, detention and legal proceedings. It gives greater discretion to judges in removal cases, and simplifies the asylum procedure. It increases available penalties for specified criminal activities.

Official Summary of S.744
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
(Congressional Research Service Summary)

(Sec. 2) States that passage of this Act recognizes that the primary tenets of its success depend on securing U.S. sovereignty and establishing a coherent and just system for integrating those who seek to join American society.
(Sec. 3) Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) (Secretary) from processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status (RPI), as established by this Act, until the Secretary has submitted to Congress the notice of commencement of implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and the Southern Border Fencing Strategy.
Prohibits the Secretary from adjusting RPI aliens to lawful permanent resident status, with certain exceptions, until the Secretary certifies to the President and Congress that: (1) the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is substantially deployed and operational, (2) the Southern Border Fencing Strategy is substantially completed, (3) a mandatory employment verification system to be used by all employers to prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining U.S. employment has been implemented, and (4) an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of entry that operates by collecting machine-readable visa or passport information from air and vessel carriers is in use.
Authorizes the Secretary to waive legal requirements necessary to ensure construction of the physical infrastructure pursuant to this section. Grants U.S. district courts exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims (which may only be brought on Constitutional grounds) arising from any such action.
(Sec. 4) Establishes a Southern Border Security Commission if DHS has not achieved effective control in all high-risk border sectors within five years after enactment of this Act.
States that the Commission’s primary responsibility shall be to make border security policy recommendations and submit a related report to the President, the Secretary, and Congress. Terminates the Commission 30 days after submission of such report.
(Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary to implement: (1) a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy for achieving control between the ports of entry in all high-risk sectors along the Southern border, and (2) a Southern Border Fencing Strategy to identify where fencing and technology should be deployed along the Southern border.

(Sec. 6) Establishes in the Treasury the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund.
Provides initial funding from the Treasury and continued funding from fees collected pursuant to this Act.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REVIEW

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that S.744 would lead to a net increase of 10.4 million people residing in the U.S., compared to the change that would have occurred under current conditions.

The CBO’s examination of S. 744 has met with mixed reviews, due in part to its unsupported supposition that some federal revenues-by the sum of $459 billion over the 2014-2023 period– would rise due to increased employment. The CBO fails to convincingly detail where, in an era of already high unemployment and extremely slow economic growth, these jobs would come from.

It estimates that the bill would boost direct spending by $262 billion for federal benefit programs as well as direct spending for enforcement and other expenses.

The CBO also notes that S.744 would impose private sector and intergovernmental mandates, with the burden falling on employers and other entities that hire, recruit or refer employment candidates. These costs would total a minimum of $700 million by 2016.

THE NEXT PHASE

S.744 now moves to the House of Representatives, where it is not expected to pass in its current form. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) notes:

“…Border security in the Senate bill is not sufficient to solve the problem…the Congressional Budget Office agreed. It found that illegal immigration would only drop by 25% under the Senate Plan…First and foremost, that means confidence that our borders are secure; confidence that those who came here illegally are not given special treatment; confidence that hardworking taxpayers are being respected; and confidence that a majority of both parties have had their say and support the final product.”

ELECTED OFFICIALS VIEWS ON S.744

Upon passage of the Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate, President Obama stated:

“The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

“If enacted, the Senate bill would establish the most aggressive border security plan in our history. It would offer a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally – a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone who’s playing by the rules and trying to come here legally. It would modernize the legal immigration system so that it once again reflects our values as a nation and addresses the urgent needs of our time. And it would provide a big boost to our recovery, by shrinking our deficits and growing our economy.”

In contrast, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Indiana) stated:

“This bill is a historic missed opportunity for the United States Senate. It is a $48 billion border stimulus package that grants amnesty to politicians who want to say they are securing the border when in fact they are not. I very much wanted to support an immigration reform proposal that balances our fundamental American values of legal immigration and the rule of law. Sadly, this bill fails that test.

“Speaker Boehner and House Republicans now have all the justification they need to start over. I would encourage the House to use President Reagan’s view of immigration as a blueprint. In his farewell address Reagan described what he saw when he talked about America as the ‘shining city on the Hill.’

“Reagan said, ‘it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.’

“Walls with doors’ is an immigration policy that can unite our nation. But, today, Democrats sound like they want only doors; Republicans only walls. The truth is we have neither. We have chaos.

“House Republicans have a chance to be the higher chamber and get reform right. They should first remind the public that America is exceptional because it is a miracle of assimilation unrivaled in human history. The fire beneath our melting pot is not our economic or material wealth, but an immaterial idea that all people are created equal and are endowed by the Creator – not the State – with certain rights. Every legal immigrant who ‘comes hurtling through the darkness, toward home,’ as Reagan said, makes that fire brighter and our nation stronger.

“The House also has an obligation to defend the rule of law, which is what the debate about border security is really about. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, our border is only 40 to 55 percent secure. At the same time, under the Senate bill, illegal immigration will drop by only 25 percent according the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, more than 40 percent of all people who are currently here illegally came through the front door and have overstayed their visas.

“The rule of law is the glue that holds our nation together and it guarantees the freedom that has drawn millions to our country. As a nation, we have an obligation to our citizens – and to legal immigrants – to uphold the rule of law and ensure the process is fair to all. Unfortunately, this bill is full of holes as far as the rule of law is considered. It is written so that the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive almost every portion of it. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of rulers.

“The House can, and must, do better. But we should be precise about what the problem is. Oklahomans and people across this country aren’t mad at illegal immigrants. They’re mad at Washington. And they are right to be angry. Politicians who pass laws they have no intention of enforcing do more to undermine the rule of law than a Guatemalan father of four who crosses the border twice a year to help feed his extended family. We can’t welcome everyone, but we should be delighted people want to come to this country, and we should do everything in our power to treat aspiring Americans fairly and with dignity.
A testosterone replacement generic viagra order therapy is followed for some males. Benefits of Kamagra Tablets for Men’s Treatment: A first line therapy to cure ED Easily available via viagra in australia bought this online Affordable in prices Quick result oriented Works long lasting Gives assured results to enable rocking sexual activity. Visit purchasing viagra australia them to know more about their services. Another test can be done as a last resort because it involves surgery viagra pharmacy and is not highly recommended.
“I filed 19 amendments to improve this bill, including amendments to help secure the border and increase interior enforcement. Unfortunately, those amendments were not considered. The House now has an opportunity to give the American people the debate they want and deserve.”

REACTION IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

It appears that the Senate legislation will not pass the House of Representatives in its current form. On July 10, the House leadership, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) issued the followingstatement in the aftermath of a special meeting of the House Republican Conference to discuss the issue of immigration reform:

“Today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system. The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don’t trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they’re alarmed by the president’s ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem. The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate.”

A SAMPLING OF
ORGANIZATIONAL REACTIONS

1. In Favor of the Legislation

A. United Auto Workers

“The UAW commends the 68 U.S. senators for approving a strong bill and passing the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744) Thursday. We urge the House to do the same, and we must remain vigilant to ensure fair and comprehensive immigration reform is passed.

“From our earliest days, the UAW has been a leader in the struggle to secure economic and social justice for all people. Our commitment to improving the lives of working men and women extends beyond our borders. It encompasses families from around the globe, and keeping families together is integral to helping shape the future of American economic stability, and protecting and preserving workers’ rights.

“The heart of S. 744 is our movement’s core demand: the creation of a reliable, inclusive road map to citizenship for 11 million aspiring Americans. This bill represents a big step toward ending family separation and toward strengthening worker protections.

“Our country’s immigration system is broken. Without a pathway to citizenship, millions of workers are forced into a shadow economy and exploited by unscrupulous employers,” said UAW President Bob King. “That drives down wages and working conditions for all workers and puts employers who want to do the right thing at a competitive disadvantage.

“Who wins when undocumented immigrants live in fear? Only employers who take advantage of them win. The rest of us lose,” King added. “Comprehensive immigration reform supports the right of all workers to a voice on the job and a decent standard of living for their families. It’s past time to lift the fear of deportation for individuals who are contributing to our country.”

“The current system divides families and forces workers to live in fear,” said UAW Vice President Cindy Estrada, who directs the union’s Competitive Shop/Independents, Parts and Suppliers (IPS) Department and leads organizing efforts in the auto parts industry. “No child should be separated from its parents. Too many children go to school in the morning not knowing whether their parent will be home when they return.

“Our country can do better for our families. Policies that separate spouses and tear children from parents are anti-family, and yet, that’s what our broken immigration system does,” added Estrada. “Between July 1, 2010, and Sept. 31, 2012, nearly 23 percent of all deportations – or 204,810 deportations – were issued for parents with citizen children.”

“We are deeply disheartened that Republicans insist on wasting billions more to further militarize the border at a time when schools, military and infrastructure are facing extreme budget cuts. But today’s 68-32 passage represents a positive step forward, and we call on House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on comprehensive immigration reform to preserve the pathway to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring Americans.”

B. Catholic Legal Immigration Network

“The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) commends the United States Senate for voting in favor of important changes to the nation’s broken immigration system. Yesterday, the Senate passed S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Competitiveness, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The measure includes significant reforms to family- and employment-based immigration programs, provides an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and provides for additional enforcement measures along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“While we have grave concerns about the unprecedented build-up along the southern border, we are encouraged by the strong bipartisan support that the Senate has shown for reform. It is now up to the House to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform that will reunite families, grow businesses, protect workers, and provide a broad path to citizenship” said CLINIC’s executive director, Jeanne Atkinson.

“The passage of comprehensive immigration reform will have a profound effect on the nation and the communities CLINIC’s affiliates serve. CLINIC is focused on building the capacity of its network of more than 215 high-quality charitable legal immigration programs. Utilizing lessons learned from successfully implementing the Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, CLINIC is ready to provide training and support on legalization implementation. CLINIC recently brought together, and will continue to work with, national partners to strategize ways to serve the millions who will qualify.”

2. OPPOSED TO THE LEGISLATION

A. The Coalition Against S.744

[S.744] s bloated and unwieldy along the lines of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank;
• Cedes excessive control over immigration law to an administration that has
repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy, even duplicitous;
• Legalizes millions of illegal immigrants before securing the borders, thus ensuring future illegal immigration;
• Rewards law breakers and punishes law enforcement, undermining the rule of law;
• Hurts American job-seekers, especially those with less education;
• Threatens to bankrupt our already strained entitlement system;
• Expands government by creating new bureaucracies, authorizing new spending, and calling for endless regulations;
• Contains dangerous loopholes that threaten national security;
• Is shot through with earmarks for politically connected interest groups;
• Overwhelms our immigration bureaucracy, guaranteeing widespread fraud.
B. D.C. March For Jobs

The DC March for Jobs, which is organizing a major rally against immigration reform which they believe ignores the needs of unemployed and underemployed Americans, is organizing a rally scheduled for July 15 in Washington.

According to the organization:

“We believe it is time that members of Congress act to preserve economic opportunity for American workers – and pass immigration legislation that protects and supports the nearly 22 million American citizens who do not have jobs, or cannot find adequate employment to support their families. Economists report that labor participation in the U.S. is at its lowest rate in over 30 years.

“Despite sluggish economic conditions, some in Congress have put forth immigration proposals to increase legal immigration levels by 50% and provide amnesty to over 11 million people who have entered the country illegally. We stand against these proposals, as they will result in adding millions more to the U.S. labor force, putting millions of American citizens out of work.”

During the Senate debate, the group delivered the following letter to Congress:

“Dear Members of Congress,

“We, the undersigned members of the Black American Leadership Alliance respectfully address this letter to Members of the Senate Gang of Eight, the Congressional Black Caucus, and to Senators from those states having the highest rates of black unemployment. We write in our capacity as leaders of the Black American Leadership Alliance, a Washington, DC-based organization whose primary mission is to further the economic and social interests of the black community. We write to express our serious concerns with Senate Bill 744. Given the fact that more than 13% of all blacks are unemployed – nearly double that of the national average, it is our position that each Member of Congress must consider the disastrous effects that Senate Bill 744 would have on low skill workers of all races, while paying particular attention to the potential harm to African Americans. Credible research indicates that black workers will suffer the greatest harm if this legislation were to be passed. We are asking that you oppose Senate Bill S.744 because of the dramatic effect it will have on the availability of employment for African American workers.

“Many studies have shown that black Americans are disproportionately harmed by mass immigration and amnesty. Most policy makers who favor the legalization of nearly 11 million aliens fail to acknowledge that decades of high immigration levels has caused unemployment to rise significantly, most particularly among black Americans. They further fail to consider how current plans to add 33 million more legal workers within ten years will have an enormously disastrous effect on our nation’s jobs outlook. With respect to African Americans, well respected researchers from some of America’s most venerable universities have found undeniable links tying large-scale immigration in the U.S. to declining rates of employment for America’s black citizens. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently issued a report
asserting that 40 percent of the decline in employment rates for low skilled black men in recent decades was due to immigration. Studies by Borjas and Katz, professors from Harvard University, found that immigration reduced the earnings of certain native born laborers by as much as eight percent and other demographic groups by 2 to 4 percent.

“According to research conducted by University of California San Diego economics Professor Gordon H. Hanson, immigration has accounted for 40% of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment rates, and current immigration proposals are sure to substantially raise these numbers. Upon conducting research in this area, Professor Vernon Briggs of Cornell University concluded that illegal immigrants and blacks, both of whom are disproportionately likely to be low skilled, frequently compete for the same jobs, and that a large number of illegal immigrants ensures a surplus of low skilled labor, thus keeping wages for black workers artificially low.

“The House Immigration Subcommittee also addressed this topic when panelists presented a report from the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at Northeastern University entitled “Exclusive: Over a Million Immigrants Land U.S. Jobs in 2008-2010.” Unsurprisingly, the study found that unskilled immigrants were taking jobs in the construction sector, jobs that young, American workers typically gravitate towards. Of course, some of the immigrants referred to by Senate Bill S. 744 work in high skill sectors, but the vast majority of them will compete with young Americans for entry level jobs, including jobs traditionally held by black workers in the low skilled wage sector. Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies, estimates that 35 percent of the immigrants taking these construction jobs are
undocumented.

“Many blacks compete with immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, for low skilled jobs due to skill level and geography, and there are simply not enough of these jobs to go around. Consider the fact that nearly 51% of African Americans do not have a higher education. In 2011, 24.6% of blacks without a high school diploma were unemployed. Even blacks with a high school diploma were unemployed at a rate of 15.5% that same year. Passing legislation to add additional workers to an already swamped labor market will only exacerbate these statistics. Despite the fact that these figures are readily available and have been reported by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, many lawmakers have chosen to do nothing, putting politics over the well-being of constituents. Yet, the fact remains that the proposed immigration bill will nearly double legal immigration levels and provide instant work authorization to over 11 million illegal immigrants. We are firmly convinced that such an expansion of the labor force during one of the most protracted periods of high unemployment in decades will result in suppressed wages for all Americans, but the effects on African Americans will be the most devastating.

“Given the current economic outlook, with declining wages and fewer opportunities for black workers, now is not the time to add millions more workers as S. 744 proposes.

“Nationally, labor participation is at 63.3% – the lowest level since 1979. Passage of the Senate’s amnesty bill will continue to flood an already overcrowded labor force and result in reduced wages and opportunities for many black citizens who are least able to afford it. Following even the simplest rules of supply and demand, this increase in available low skilled labor will undoubtedly reduce wages for all workers. However, according to the experts, the impact will be hardest on the black community.

“If passed, the proposed immigration bill will be costly for all Americans, but will harm black American workers more than any other group. Mass immigration and amnesty puts African Americans from all walks of life out of work and suppresses wages, causing them to compete with aliens willing to work in poorer working conditions for cheaper pay. When almost one in
seven blacks is unemployed, now is not the time to further saturate the labor force with increased immigration levels and amnesty. If Congress fails to stop this irresponsible legislation, the United States will continue to see more and more blacks out of jobs and unable to support their families. The disastrous effects of illegal immigration to the black community is not simply limited to jobs.

“The Black American Leadership Alliance is calling upon the Senate Gang of Eight and those Members from states having the highest rates of black unemployment to recognize the devastating effects amnesty and mass immigration has on low skilled workers, particularly those in the black community. Secondly, we implore each Member to fulfill his or her duty to the
millions of Americans struggling to find work by opposing amnesty and supporting policies to reduce overall levels of legal and illegal immigration.”

CONCLUSION

Prior legislative assurances of tightened border control have not been met, leading to a deep-seated mistrust of the basic compromise of S.744, which is more security for a guaranteed path to legalization. This promises to be a significant roadblock to achieving the compromises necessary for the passage of immigration reform legislation in the House.

AMERICA’S VANISHING DEFENSE INDUSTRY

n a stunning series of across the board reports from defense analysts, retired military leaders, manufacturers, elected officials, unions and Congressional committees over the past several years, it has been revealed that America’s ability to produce the weapons and technology vital to our national defense is rapidly vanishing.

An analysis prepared by the Industrial Union Council of the AFL-CIO
reports that:

“…a much greater number of items once supplied by U.S. manufacturers are now obtained from foreign suppliers–flat panel displays, machine tools, advanced electronics and information technologies–because they are not readily available from U.S. producers.” The study reports that U.S. Joint Forces Command Colonel Michael Cole believes that the problem is not just a matter of a handful of highly specialized items designed to meet narrow defense requirements, but the “eradication of the U.S. industry capacity.” Col. Cole also is concerned that current strategies to address the crisis are not working… ”

Those concerns are echoed by The Alliance for American Manufacturing:

“The United States’ national security is threatened by our military’s growing and dangerous reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and finished products needed to defend the American people. The health of our manufacturing sector is inextricably intertwined with our national security, and it is vital that we strengthen the sector. The health of the United States’ defense industrial base–and our national security–is in jeopardy. We are vulnerable to major disruptions in foreign supplies that could make it impossible for U.S. warriors, warships, tanks, aircraft, and missiles to operate effectively.”

According to the Alliance, “China controls key inputs needed for military equipment…The United States is completely dependent on a single Chinese company for the chemical needed to produce solid rocket fuel used to propel Hellfire missiles.”

The news gets worse. High-tech magnets are vital components in military equipment and vehicles. The United States does not produce any of these key parts, but China manufactures 75% of the world’s supply.

The crisis extends also to essential raw materials. America imports 91% of the rare-earth element lanthanum, used for night vision, from China.”

HOW IT HAPPENED

America’s dependence on overseas sources is not merely the result of a change in global economics. Much of it is the unintentional result of financial policies which have driven U.S. manufacturers out of business, a downturn in military procurement, and, most recently, the intentional actions of the Obama Administration.

A key case in point concerns the Abrams tank, America’s premier fighting vehicle. There is only one plant–in Lima, Ohio–in the entire USA that manufactures these machines. There was another facility near Detroit, but it was closed in 1996. President Obama has sought to shut the Lima down, leaving America without the ability to produce this essential part of our defense. The plant’s life has been extended for two years, but the future looks uncertain.

Rep. Bud McKeon (R-Ca.), Chair of the House of Representatives Armed Forces Committee, notes that planned cuts would “devastate” the industrial base:

“Even without sequestration, companies are cutting investments, shuttering operations, and laying off workers because of the uncertainty emanating from Washington. Sequestration would risk severe and permanent damage to the defense industrial base as a competitive commercial enterprise, reliable provider of urgent wartime needs, and as a national strategic assets. Massive layoffs will lead to a lost generation of skilled workers that will be impossible to replace; Slashing R&D spending will stifle the innovation that keeps our military the most advanced in the world; Consolidation by large contractors will reduce competition, crush small businesses, and increase costs.”

The Industrial Union Council reports that, “No single indicator by itself can represent economy-wide manufacturing capabilities or trends. But [there are] several key indicators of domestic economic performance:

“value-added output, industrial capacity and capacity utilization, employment, and number of establishments-and global competitiveness-balance of trade in goods and import penetration rate–when taken together,provide strong evidence that America’s manufacturing base has greatly weakened over the last decade. The former indicators reflect the economy’s ability to maintain and increase output growth over the long run. The latter reflect the American manufacturers’ ability to compete with foreign producers in domestic and global markets.

“Well-known examples of defense critical technologies where domestic sourcing is endangered include propellant chemicals, space qualified electronics, power sources for space and military applications (batteries and photovoltaics), specialty metals, hard disk drives, and flat panel displays (LCDs). University of Texas at Austin engineering professor Michael Webber
evaluated the economic health of sixteen industrial sectors ‘within the manufacturing support base’ of the U.S. defense industrial system, ‘that have a direct bearing on innovation and production of novel mechanical products and systems,’ and whose output ‘is used directly in the design process of other industries.” Of the sixteen industries he examined, thirteen showed
significant signs of erosion, especially since 2001.

“These industries supply critical materials, components and parts used in defense systems or they are enablers and enhancers of innovation within industries important to national security, including aerospace. The movement of these industries oversea, which increases the dependence of the defense industrial base on offshore or foreign-owned components and equipment (e.g., semiconductors, PCBs, machine tools), can adversely impact national security…

“The erosion and migration of domestic manufacturing is also weakening the America’s R&D and innovation capacity and undermining its global technological leadership. The design, development and production of both commercial and defense-specific technologies and products are tightly linked. As Michael Webber warned, if the U.S. manufacturing base “that props up the
entire national innovation system continues to deteriorate in the United States, but grows and thrives overseas, then large numbers of America’s most innovative companies might be inclined to move overseas to be closer to production and the necessary support base. . . . Significant deterioration of companies that design and make discrete components is triggering a fundamental hollowing out of the national innovation system.”

Retired U.S. Army Brigadier General John Adams has called for a joint strategy by government, industry, academic research institutions, and the military to increase U.S. domestic production of manufactured items and recovery of natural resources that the armed forces require. In addition, his recommendations emphasize the importance of investment today in the technological innovation, education, and training needed to keep America secure tomorrow.

Sequestration, if implemented as planned, will have a further devastating impact both to existing U.S. forces as well as the American defense industrial base. According to Rep. McKeon, the impact would be “catastrophic.” The House Armed Forces committeereports:

tadalafil online india Medicines are made of highly dissolvable substances that make sure this acts fast. She has learned only too painfully over the years that wealth does not buy happiness. viagra 50 mg Of all ginseng varieties, the one grown in Wisconsin, North Americais levitra on sale most widely preferred. It’s order soft cialis been handed down for people with a deep ancestors connected with having diabetes; you will want to pay out for the oral treatments.
“The Numbers: the defense budget would be cut an additional $55 billion per year from the levels established in the Budget Control Act. That would mean an additional $492 billion in cuts on top of the $487 billion already being implemented. In total, over $1 trillion would be cut over the next ten years with disastrous consequences for soldiers, veterans, national security, and the economy.

A Historically Small Military
in an Extraordinarily Dangerous World

“In the midst of the most dynamic and complex security environment in recent memory, sequestration would severely diminish America’s global posture. An additional 100,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen would be separated from service. Those reductions would lead to The smallest ground force since 1940.
• A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915
• The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force
“Precisely at the moment when advanced military technology is spreading around the world, America would be forced to make severe cutbacks, eroding our technological advantage. The cuts would include:

• Termination of the Joint Strike Fighter, minimal upgrades to existing forces, and a wider “fighter gap”
• Termination of the new strategic bomber critical to America’s future posture in the Asia-Pacific
• Delaying new submarines and cutting the existing fleet as nations like China expand anti-sub capabilities
• Shrinking America’s aircraft carrier fleet, reducing power projection capability
• Termination of the littoral combat ship essential to defeating anti-access threats from nations like Iran

“The combination of cuts to force structure and advanced technology would lead to a hollow force increasingly uncertain of its ability to defend the nation.”

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Cuts to spending for the acquisition of military equipment alone would lead the loss of over 1,000,000 private sector jobs. These cuts could push unemployment back up to 9%. Cuts to active-duty and DOD civilian personnel would amount to over 350,000 jobs lost. The impact will be borne disproportionately by some states. The ten states that will feel the largest pain as a percentage of the state economy are Virginia, Connecticut, Alabama, Arizona, Maryland, Alaska, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Missouri.

Economic Impact

Stephen S. Fuller, PH.D., performed a study for George Mason University in 2011 that examined the potential economic impact of proposed DOD spending reductions in 2013. The study is an instructive example of the negative effect on the economy this particular area of government cutting could have.

“Deductions for the acquisition of military Equipment… will significantly exceed the initial dollar value of these spending reductions as measured by lost jobs and personal income …reduced non wage expenditures, and a decreased rate of economic growth…Additionally, the impacts of these losses will extend across the full breadth of the U.S. economy, as this decreased spending will result in reduced spending for consumer goods and services. For each job lost by DOD’s prime contractors and their direct and indirect suppliers within the aerospace and military equipment industry as a result of DOD cutbacks for the acquisition of military equipment, three additional jobs would be lost in other sectors across the breadth of the U.S. economy. These job losses in non-military equipment manufacturing would occur in professional and business services, financial, information and administrative services, retail trade, leisure and hospitality services, education and health services, construction and other manufacturing.”

According to Frank Gaffney, Jr., Director of the Center for Security Policy, the worst impact will be on the national safety of the United States. Reductions due to sequestration could cut $500 billion in planned defense spending over a decade. but the economic impact of the resulting loss of… jobs, 88% of which will be in small businesses, will also be devastating. Additonal problems resulting from reducing loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank for arms manufcturers will also have dire consequences.

Recommendations

The Alliance for American Manufacturing provides the following recommendations:
1. Increasing long-term federal investment in high-technology industries, particularly those involving advanced research and manufacturing capabilities.
2. Properly applying and enforcing existing laws and regulations to support the U.S. defense industrial base.
3. Developing domestic sources of key natural resources required by our armed forces.
4. Developing plans to strengthen our defense industrial base in the U.S. National Military Strategy, National Security Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review process.
5. Building consensus among government, industry, the defense industrial base workforce, and the military on the best ways to strengthen the defense industrial base.
6. Increasing cooperation among federal agencies and between government and industry to build a healthier defense industrial base. U.S. manufacturing jobs has reduced the size of the workforce skilled in research, development, and advanced manufacturing processes.
7. Strengthening collaboration between government, industry, and academic research institutions to education, train, and retain people with specialized skills.
8. Crafting legislation to support a broadly representative defense industrial base strategy. Congress and the Administration must collaborate on economic and fiscal policies that budget for enduring national security capabilities and sustain the industrial base necessary to support them.
9. Modernizing and securing defense supply chains through networked operations.
10. Identifying potential defense supply chain chokepoints and planning to prevent disruptions.

RUSSIA’S LONG HOT SUMMER

Following a spring which saw the beginning of a draft that will add 153,000 conscripts into the Russian Armed Forces by mid-July, the summer of 2013 will be among the most active ever for Moscow’s armed forces.

The Russian Defense Ministry reports that Moscow’s military will conduct no less than 500 drills within the next several months. The Jamestown Foundation reports that in September, “Russia and Belarus will stage a joint military exercise on Belarus territory, allegedly to rehearse a defense against a Polish attack on the country.” A similar exercise held in 2009 included training for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Poland.

A number of worrisome “Snap Drills” have taken place in recent months, in which Russian forces engage in war-footing maneuvers without prior warning. The Voice of Russia reports that in May, a snap drill involving Space Defense forces, long-range and transport aviation, and combined air and anti-missile defense forces in Russia’s Western District took place. 8,700 personnel were involved. Russia’s own emphasis on anti-missile defense renders Moscow’s objections to the U.S. ABM system rather odd.

Those maneuvers followed the March snap drill exercises in the Black Sea. The Jamestown Foundation described the exercise:
“At 4 a.m. on March 28, President Vladimir Putin delivered a sealed letter to Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu ordering him to launch at once unscheduled maneuvers involving not just the Black Sea Fleet but air and airborne forces and the Army… They were not the only such maneuvers conducted at this time, only the most prominent ones.

“In conjunction with these latest surprise military exercises, the Strategic Missile Command conducted an impromptu check of missile troops in Tver Oblast, and Russia also carried out exercises for Long-Range Aviation forces in the Saratov region (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, March 30; Interfax, March 29). Simultaneously, Russia’s fleet in the South China Sea also conducted a live-fire exercise (Interfax-AVN, March 28). The exercise also consisted of a coastal landing operation in the Caucasus where the fleet, helicopters, and fighter and reconnaissance aircraft supported the marines landing ashore (Interfax-AVN Online, March 29). While one may plausibly say that the scope and size of the exercise described here was intended to demonstrate the regionally concentrated Russian forces’ capabilities to deploy at a moment’s notice and move to a combat theater, there are more disturbing aspects of this exercise. Indeed, the ground forces undertook a 500-kilometer forced march, while the airborne forces came from the Moscow, Ryazan and Tula divisions (Rossiya 1 TV, March 29).

“Although Russian leaders claimed that, under international agreements, they did not need to provide notice of the impending maneuvers to Russia’s neighbors because they kept the exercise under 9,000 men, it is clear that the implications of this exercise are disturbing for both Georgia and Ukraine (Interfax, March 28).

“This is not just a question of Russia following up on its negative reaction to joint US-Georgian exercises earlier in March and attempting to demonstrate that it remains the sole dominant power in the Caucasus and Black Sea region. As Aleksandr’ Golts suggested, the recent March exercises demonstrate that Moscow can, at a moment’s notice, call up its forces and attack Ukraine or Georgia without warning—with no regard for the fact that the Black Sea Fleet is stationed on what is Ukrainian territory and that at least parts of Russia’s regional ground and air forces are located on Georgian territory (Moscow Times, April 3).

“This suggests Moscow’s real view of these countries’ territorial integrity and sovereignty. Moreover, Golts ridiculed official proclamations that the exercises complied with international agreements, showing that Moscow violated the spirit, if not the letter of those accords (Moscow Times, April 3). Moscow may claim that it and Kyiv are ready to agree on the movement of the Black Sea Fleet’s units, but this fait accompli underlines what the real situation is like there (Interfax, March 28).”

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Georgia’s foreign ministry issued a statement expressing its “grave concern” about this provocative action (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, March 28). While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) offered no official response, there certainly was some disquiet in Brussels at Moscow’s actions.

As the New York Analysis has previously reported, Moscow has undertaken a $723 billion modernization program that includes procuring 1,700 warplanes, including cutting edge fighters and new air defense batteries. The Voice of Russia reports that in the 21st century, Russia has revamped its air force with many new craft, including some, like the T-50, that may surpass America’s latest fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

Moscow is placing a large emphasis on naval capabilities, which given the context of Russia’s geography has mainly offensive uses. $138 billion has been committed to this effort. Reuters’ Alexi Anishchuk notes that after an absence of twenty years, Russia will resume nuclear submarine patrols in the southern seas as well as the Mediterranean. Russia has been actively seeking new international naval bases. According to Moscow’s Vice admiral Viktor Chirkov, sites include Cuba, Vietnam, and the Seychelles in addition to Syria. President Putin has also pledged to militarize the Arctic region with a new naval base there.
Intentions.

Concern over the growing quantity, variety and sophistication of weaponry in the Russian arsenal is more than matched by a newly aggressive posture by Moscow’s military and civilian leadership. On Jan, 26, Gen. Col.Valeri Gerasimov, the top officer in Russia’s Armed Forces General Staff, contradicted the key tenet of American elected officials,(including both the President, most Democrats and some isolationist Republicans such as Ron Paul) that World War 2-scale conflicts were a relic of the past. Gerasimov is quoted in the Executive Intelligence Review stating: “No one rules out the possibility of major wars…and there can be no question of being unprepared for them.”

Pushkin House reports that “The Russian armed forces have been in the grip of a deep and drastic program of change and modernization in the last four years.”

American Assumptions

The sharp reduction of the American defense inventory over approximately the past twenty-three years has been predicated on two basic assumptions. First, that Russia, Washington’s chief cold war adversary, was no longer a substantial threat following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Second, that no military force or collection of forces on the planet had the technological sophistication to rival the United States.

Acting on those concepts, America’s armed forces were substantially reduced. The Navy shrunk from 600 ships to 286, the Air Force from 37 combat air wings to 20, and the Army from 17 divisions to 10. Under the Obama administration, this process has deepened and accelerated. The President has also pursued a course of significant and, in large part unilateral, nuclear arms reduction. The White House has also been reluctant to fully support key anti-ballistic missile defenses, or to fund replacements for many aging or obsolete conventional weapons.

Unfortunately, it has become evident that those two key assumptions are no longer, if they were ever, valid. Since Mr. Putin’s return to the leadership of a newly aggressive and militarily assertive Russia, vast sums have been appropriated by Moscow to revitalize that nation’s conventional and nuclear military. He has ordered a return to cold-war style tactics such as probing western defenses with nuclear submarines and atomic weapons-carrying bombers.
(China has developed a hyper-sophisticated armed force that openly rivals any technological edge formerly enjoyed by the United States. It has also made substantial inroads in gaining influence in Latin America.)

Despite these realities, President Obama has chosen not to confront, in any serious manner, either Russia or China (China has developed a hyper-sophisticated armed force that openly rivals any technological edge formerly enjoyed by the United States. It has also made substantial inroads in gaining influence in Latin America. The New York Analysis has previously reported on the rise of Beijing’s military.) on their military buildups or on their hostile actions towards some of their neighbors. The White House has de-emphasized preparations for the large-scale strategic threats that concerned prior administrations, despite the continued and growing existence of those threats, as evidenced by Russian General Gareyev’s emphasis on “the priority development of our strategic nuclear forces and the space defense system, as the decisive factor…”

The Great Leap Forward

Both China and Russia have saved vast sums in their military efforts thanks to Washington’s generosity and ineptness.
During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the American technological edge over both Russia and the People’s Republic of China was virtually eliminated following a sharp change in American policy which, for the first time, allowed the sale of Cray supercomputers to both of those nations.

In 1993, the New York Times described the sale as a “good will gesture.” Charles Smith, writing in WND, reviewed the events of the early years of the Clinton Administration, noting how Tony Podesta, a Washington Lobbyist and brother of Clinton advisor John Podesta, convinced the President to authorize the sale of cutting-edge computer hardware and software to both Russia and China.

Moscow Conference

In May, Russian and NATO leaders met at the Moscow Security Conference. Despite hopes for improved relations, The Kremlin took a hard line that did little to instill optimism that a new or improved relationship with the west was achievable, There were a few common concerns, including international trafficking in drugs, the threat of terrorism, cross border crime, and the illegal weapons trade.

However, Russia believes that the Conventional Forces Treaty (CFT) is “dead,” and views western efforts to protect itself against Iranian nuclear missiles as a threat to Moscow’s nuclear deterrent. Moscow has failed to explain its perspectives, and it is difficult to discern any logic to its position.

[STATE DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: ] TREATY ON CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE (CFE)
Michael additionally suffered from anxiety-related illnesses http://www.midwayfire.com/minutes/05-12-09.pdf order cialis online and serious weight loss that would alter his appearance. Continuously keep out of span of kids. lowest price for cialis You don’t have to be worried about any kind of side effect viagra ordination http://www.midwayfire.com/?product=7514 then it may be easily altered. pill sildenafil The Browns became the Baltimore Ravens in its new locale.
(U.S. State Department: On November 22, 2011, The United States reluctantly announced in Vienna, Austria, that it would cease carrying out certain obligations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty with regard to Russia. The CFE Treaty’s implementation group came after the United States and NATO tried for 4 years to find a diplomatic solution following Russia’s decision in 2007 to cease implementation with respect to all other 29 CFE States. Since then, Russia has refused to accept inspections and ceased to provide information to other CFE Treaty parties on its military forces as required by the Treaty.

The United States stated it would continue to implement the Treaty and carry out all obligations with all States Parties other than Russia, including not exceeding the numerical limits on conventional armaments and equipment established by the Treaty. The U.S. offered to resume full Treaty implementation regarding Russia if Russia resumes implementation of its Treaty obligations.)

CFE Treaty
19 November 1990
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
________________________________________
Concluding Act
10 July 1992
Concluding Act of the Negotiation on Personnel Strenght of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
________________________________________
Final Document
15-31 May 1996
Final Document of the First Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Concluding Act of the Negotiation on Personnel Strength
________________________________________
Agreement
19 November 1999
Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
________________________________________
CFE Final Act
19 November 1999
The Final Act of the Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
________________________________________
Formal Conclusions
1 June 2001
Formal Conclusions of the Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Concluding Act of the Negotiation on Pesonnel Strength
___________________________________________
Russia’s obsession with western efforts to protect itself from a nuclear attack has remained a constant in its policy. Some observers credit President Reagan’s “strategic defense initiative” plan as a key factor in convincing Soviet leaders that they could not win the cold war. The Moscow Times noted that “Russia sees U.S. plans to install missile defense assets in Poland and Rumania as a threat to its nuclear deterrent potential, while America’s view is that missile defense is specifically and definitely limited,” and thus incapable of hindering Russia defense abilities.

“NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE.”

In 2010, Moscow established a “New Military Doctrine.” The Doctrine adheres to Russia’s long standing belief that it is the constant target of military threats. Added to the Kremlin’s concerns about NATO are rather unsubstantiated worries about the former republics of the Soviet Union, and genuine concerns about terrorism. To further deal with the terrorist issue, President Putin, on May 6, announced the institution of a Special Operations command, which could have particular value in counter terrorism operations.
Excepts From the
Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation
February 5, 2010
Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the military doctrine) is one of the key strategic planning documents in the Russian Federation and is the system officially adopted in the state of views on preparations for armed defense and the armed defense of the Russian Federation…despite the decline in the probability of the outbreak of the Russian Federation against large-scale war with the use of conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, in some areas of the Russian Federation military threats intensified.
8. The main external military dangers:
a) the desire to endow the power potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) global functions carried out in violation of international law, to bring the military infrastructure of countries – members of NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, including by expanding the bloc;
b) an attempt to destabilize the situation in individual countries and regions and undermine strategic stability;
c) deployment (capacity) of military contingents of foreign states (groups of states) in the territories adjoining the Russian Federation and its allies, as well as in adjacent waters;
d) the creation and deployment of strategic missile defense systems that undermine global stability and violating the prevailing balance of power in the nuclear missile sphere, as well as the militarization of outer space, the deployment of strategic conventional high-precision weapons;…military action will be characterized by the increasing importance of high-precision, electromagnetic, laser, infrasound weapons, information and control systems, unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous marine vehicles driven robotic weapons systems and military equipment.
Nuclear weapons will remain an important factor in preventing the occurrence of nuclear wars and military conflicts with the use of conventional weapons (large-scale war, regional war).
In the event of a military conflict with the use of conventional weapons (large-scale war, regional war), jeopardizing the very existence of the state, the possession of nuclear weapons may lead to the escalation of the military conflict in the nuclear military conflict.
22. As part of the strategic deterrence measures forceful nature of the Russian Federation provides for the application of high-precision weapons.
The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of force against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, a threat to the very existence of the state.

CONCLUSION

A realistic examination of Russia’s armed forces budget, its central military planning document, its deployment of naval forces, its intense training and snap drill activities, its resumption of nuclear equipped patrols by bombers and submarines, and the statements of its key generals and national security officials reveals a clear return to a Cold War stance.

Several recently released reports indicate that a number of states have improved their financial and budgetary positions, even while the national picture remains depressed.

America’s nationwide economy continues to languish in the economic doldrums, with high unemployment and even worse long term unemployment, weak manufacturing, poor export numbers, and other worrisome indicators.
(New York Analysis, Feb. 4) Indeed, with both an unprecedented national debt and ruinous annual deficits, there are few reasons for optimism in the U.S. picture. This contrasts with the news from a number of states, although even within those states reporting progress, challenges remain.

Much of this state-by-state progress may be attributable to adherence to economic perspectives markedly different than that of the White House, according to the National Governors Association.

“A number of governors discussed good government as a way of helping their state’s economy. Limiting regulations or streamlining the regulatory process was mentioned in 22 speeches…”

United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis famously wrote “It is one of the happy accidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

The diversity among state governments celebrated by Justice Brandeis, and the growing tendency to adopt policies significantly different than Washington’s was recently noted by the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Rich States, Poor States” report:

“With Congress locked in perpetual gridlock and the U.S. economy stuck in a lackluster recovery, state governments around the country are seeking their own solutions to the country’s economic woes. However, the paths that states are pursuing to achieve economic prosperity are not all the same. Some have seen magnificent success in achieving real economic recovery while others continue to struggle.”

The National Governors Association reports:

“Most governors reported balanced budgets, without reporting nearly as much of a need for large budget cuts or new revenues as they had in the past few years. Twenty-Four governors reported having a surplus or building up rainy day and revenue funds. Thirteen governors also pointed to their state’s good credit rating.

“However, many governors also were wary of potential federal budget reductions and forecasts suggesting economic growth will continue to be slow for most of the country…Twenty-one governors mentioned that funding pensions and other long-term employee benefits were a challenge for their state, though some governors who talked about pensions simply reviewed benefit changes implemented in the past couple of years…

“The states are also operating with a smaller workforce than was in place when the recession started–13 governors mentioned staff reductions, totaling in the tens of thousands. In most cases, governors reported these numbers as evidence of their success at rightsizing government…”

The public has noticed the contrasts between state governments and Washington. According to the Pew Research Center,

“Even as public views of the federal government in Washington have fallen to another new low, the public continues to see their state and local governments in a favorable light. Overall, 63% say they have a favorable opinion of their local government, virtually unchanged over recent years. And 57% express a favorable view of their state government – a five-point uptick from last year. By contrast, just 28% rate the federal government in Washington favorably. That is down five points from a year ago and the lowest percentage ever in a Pew Research Center survey.
We outfit certified information and master conference on essential parts of government approach drives for development with the going together with instruments, to assist aggregations and NGO’s incorporated in distinctive change practices and rejuvenate the ventures. viagra tablets for sale Dosage 100mg Kamagra Polo is cialis for women the standard dose for men. generic levitra check out for more All of these are designed to rehabilitate the parietal lobe. Maintaining excellent penis health Unfortunately, there is no order viagra no prescription one in this world who want to be free from the issue whereas there are others who are serious regarding this problem and feel reluctant or embarrassed to discuss it with the therapist.
“The percentage of Democrats expressing a favorable opinion of the federal government has declined 10 points in the past year, from 51% to 41%. For the first time since Barack Obama became president, more Democrats say they have an unfavorable view of the federal government in Washington than a favorable view (51% unfavorable vs. 41% favorable). Favorable opinions of the federal government among Republicans, already quite low in 2012 (20% favorable), have fallen even further, to 13% currently.

“The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds positive ratings across party lines for state and local governments overall. But the partisan makeup of the state government matters: Republicans give more positive ratings to GOP-led state governments, while Democrats rate Democratic-led state governments more highly.

“Notably, politically divided state governments get positive ratings from members of both parties. In the 13 states with divided governments – those in which the governor and a majority of state legislators are from different parties – majorities of both Republicans and Democrats express favorable opinions of their state governments.

“A sizable majority of Americans (69%) say that their state is currently facing budget problems. However, assessments of state budgets were even more negative two years ago; in February 2011, 81% said their state was encountering budget problems. And while just 30% say that economic conditions in their state are excellent or good, that is nearly double the percentage expressing a positive view of the national economy (16% excellent or good).”

There are sharp distinctions between the states. Many Republican-oriented states have cut costs, regulation, and taxes. On the other hand, Democrat-controlled states, according to the Wall Street Journal, including examples such as Minnesota, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Maryland, have hiked taxes.

Referring to those states, the Journal notes that:

“The measures contrast starkly with initiatives to cut or eliminate taxes on individual and corporate incomes that have dominated the discussion in much of the country, thanks to Republican control of nearly half the statehouses.

The “Rich States, Poor States” study notes that governors of the five states with the worst economic outlooks, including Vermont, New York, Illinois, California and Minnesota, are all Democrats.

Some of those comparing the inability of the leftist policies of the national government and state governments with views similar to the Obama Administration to make progress note that the more conservative policies of some state governments have proven more effective. An American Spectator article notes:

“…there are oases of rationalism found in the 25 states now governed under total Republican control, with a Republican governor, state senate, and state house. America is conducting a national experiment on capitalism versus socialism among these increasingly partisan states. Compare the fiscal and economic performance, for example, of Democrat-controlled California, Illinois, and New York, to that of Republican-controlled Texas, Florida, and Virginia, not to mention Indiana and Wisconsin.”

Washington may not be taking note. Authors David Lowery, Virginia Gray, and Frank Baumgartner note in a Publius article that:

“We find little evidence that changes in state policy agendas in the aggregate influence national patterns of policy attention…while federal funding and regulatory activity ensure that the national government can exercise influence over policy making in the states the obverse is not nearly so clear…Our results also indicate that…both national and state legislators would respond to common problems at the same time-may not be valid. To a considerable degree, state and national legislatures still have their own policy agendas and their own policy cycles.”

As the national economy continues to lag, Washington may soon have to take note of what has, and what has not, worked in the individual states.

President Obama will meet with PRC president President Xi Jinping on Friday and Saturday, the first get together since Xi assumed his nation’s leadership. The meeting follows recent high-level visits by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Treasury Secretary John Lew.

The usual visual pomp accompanying state visits will be noticeably absent from the event, which will take place at the secluded Annenberg Estate in California. White House sources maintain that the President hopes to establish a good working relationship with Xi. The two first met last year before Xi’s ascension.

Security Issues

A number of serious issues exist between the two nations, including China’s rapidly growing military might and its ongoing cyber-attacks and espionage against the United States and its allies. While spying is normal between great powers, the unprecedented size and scope of Beijing’s efforts against American military, governmental and corporate targets more closely resembles full scale clandestine warfare rather than the normal cold war cloak and dagger interchange.

North Korean nuclear weapons development is also a crucial issue. Beijing wields extraordinary influence over Pyongyang, but has done little to dissuade it from its bellicose actions, missile development, or atomic weapons programs.

Donilon notes:
“The Chinese military is modernizing its capabilities and expanding its presence in Asia, drawing our forces into closer contact and raising the risk that an accident or miscalculation could destabilize the broader relationship. We need open and reliable channels to address perceptions and tensions about our respective activities in the short-term and about our long-term presence and posture in the Western Pacific.”

Human Rights

There is a question as to whether Mr. Obama will bring up serious ongoing human rights violations committed by China. According to Human Rights Watch: “[China] continues to be an authoritarian one-party state that imposes sharp curbs on freedom of expression, association, and religion; openly rejects judicial independence and press freedom; and arbitrarily restricts and suppresses human rights defenders and organizations, often through extra-judicial measures.
The government also censors the internet; maintains highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia; systematically condones—with rare exceptions—abuses of power in the name of “social stability” ; and rejects domestic and international scrutiny of its human rights record as attempts to destabilize and impose “Western values” on the country. The security apparatus—hostile to liberalization and legal reform—seems to have steadily increased its power since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ..
At the same time Chinese citizens are increasingly rights-conscious and challenging the authorities over livelihood issues, land seizures, forced evictions, abuses of power by corrupt cadres, discrimination, and economic inequalities. Official and scholarly statistics estimate that 250-500 protests occur per day; participants number from ten to tens of thousands. Internet users and reform-oriented media are aggressively pushing the boundaries of censorship, despite the risks of doing so, by advocating for the rule of law and transparency, exposing official wrong-doing, and calling for reforms.
Despite their precarious legal status and surveillance by the authorities, civil society groups continue to try to expand their work, and increasingly engage with international NGOs. A small but dedicated network of activists continues to exposes abuses as part of the weiquan (“rights defense”)movement, despite systematic repression ranging from police monitoring to detention, arrest, enforced disappearance, and torture.”

Commerce

Major issues affecting Sino-U.S. relations concern currency, trade and investment. While the prospect of great gain from trading with the PRC continues to tantalize western enterprises, some observers are reducing their level of optimism.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China has identified potentially unlawful actions employed by Beijing designed to make China dominant in a number of economic endeavors. The Chamber notes that China’s market reforms were ceased in 2002. Central planning and actions designed to place foreign economic interests at a disadvantage were again employed the following year.

Among the most worrisome of the issues facing foreign investors in China is the issue of intellectual property rights (IPR). According to the Chamber’s recent annual survey,
You should again prevent from taking them if you have good sexual drive and ability to achieve erection that are a dream of such men. generic viagra It is economical too but there are no such ads of the levitra on line Going Here. These pills soften the penis muscles in men cheapest tadalafil india and energy production. Be sure to read the Privacy Policy and delivery information best online viagra here are the findings pages. “a growing number of respondents report China IPR infringements cause material damage to their company operations. The number of those who said IPR theft causes material damage to China operations rose 12 percentage points, to 34 percent. The percentage of those who reported material damage to global operations also rose by 4 percentage points, to 14 percent…In the most recent survey, the percentage of respondents who said Internet censorship “negatively impacts” their company’s ability to conduct business in China more than doubled, from 7 percent to 16 percent. The total number of respondents who see censorship to some degree hurting their business rose to more than 50 percent this year… A combined 62 percent of respondents report that blocking of search engines makes it more difficult to conduct business. In a global economy increasingly reliant on communication, censorship makes it cumbersome to retrieve real-time market information, share time-sensitive data, and communicate with business and research colleagues in other countries.”

Forbes summarized:

“If one were to predict the nature of the bilateral relationship over the next few decades by extrapolating from trends during any six-year period between 1978 and 2006, expectations would be quite positive. Despite occasional frictions, the relationship bore fruit for people in both countries and the broader geopolitical and philosophical differences between the U.S. and Chinese governments were, to a large extent, quarantined from infecting mutually beneficial economic relations.
That appears to be no longer the case. Although the massive economic relationship – which reached a record half trillion dollars of trade and investment flows in 2012 – is still mutually beneficial, the future of U.S.-China relations based on developments over the most recent six years appears more problematic. Today, it seems, most bilateral economic frictions are magnified through the prism of those geopolitical and philosophical differences, making controversies seem larger and more intractable.”

Unreality

An aura of optimism, whether warranted or not, permeates Washington’s perspectives towards China.

The Brookings Institute recently urged the President to use Xi’s rise to power as an opportunity to improve relations, but it fails to provide any credible reason why this would be the case.

In his March 11 remarks to the Asia society, President Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon stated that “substantial progress” has been made in Sino-American relations over the past four years:

“The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful, prosperous China. We do not want our relationship to become defined by rivalry and confrontation. And I disagree with the premise put forward by some historians and theorists that a rising power and an established power are somehow destined for conflict. … It is not a law of physics, but a series of choices by leaders that lead to great power confrontation. Others have called for containment. We reject that, too. A better outcome is possible. But it falls to both sides—the United States and China—to build a new model of relations between an existing power and an emerging one. Xi Jinping and President Obama have both endorsed this goal. “

A realistic assessment provides no evidence of that progress. Beijing has engaged in wartime-style espionage within the U.S.; it has dramatically ramped up its spending on its armed forces; it has moved aggressively against its neighbors; and it has occupied offshore territory belonging to the Philippines. Donilon notes:

“To that end, a deeper U.S.-China military-to-military dialogue is central to addressing many of the sources of insecurity and potential competition between us. This remains a necessary component of the new model we seek, and it is a critical deficiency in our current relationship. The Chinese military is modernizing its capabilities and expanding its presence in Asia, drawing our forces into closer contact and raising the risk that an accident or miscalculation could destabilize the broader relationship. We need open and reliable channels to address perceptions and tensions about our respective activities in the short-term and about our long-term presence and posture in the Western Pacific.”

Economically, China continues to violate international norms regarding intellectual property rights. Especially important is the issue of cybersecurity. Donilon outlined the economic issues in March:

“It is also critical that we strengthen the underpinnings of our extensive economic relationship, which is marked by increasing interdependence. We have been clear with Beijing that as China takes a seat at a growing number of international tables, it needs to assume responsibilities commensurate with its economic clout and national capabilities. As we engage with China’s new leaders, the United States will encourage them to move forward with the reforms outlined in the country’s twelfth Five Year Plan, including efforts to shift the country away from its dependence on exports toward a more balanced and sustainable consumer-oriented growth model. The United States will urge a further opening of the Chinese market and a leveling of the playing field. And the United States will seek to work together with China to promote international financial stability through the G-20 and to address global challenges such as climate change and energy security.”

The June 7/8 meeting may be the most important conference to date in the 21st century. The military and economic climate of at least the next several decades will be affected by its outcome.

SEVERAL SCANDALS, SAME PROBLEM

The White House has lately been racked with increasingly serious scandals, including those involving the attack on the American outpost in Benghazi, the wiretapping of reporters, and the use of the Internal Revenue Service to discourage the activities of organizations perceived to differ in their views from the President.

The common thread uniting each of these three diverse issues is the refusal or failure by the Executive Branch to provide appropriate information to the public, in apparent contradiction to the requirements of a law passed in 1966 which became effective one year later.

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Since July of 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
United States Code Section 552 of Title 5 provides Americans with the court-enforceable right to access federal agency records, with limited exemptions. FOIA also requires that agencies automatically disclose certain information, including frequently requested records. The law mandates that federal agencies comply with information requests within 20 working days.

According to the official federal FOIA site, the Executive Branch, led by the President, is responsible for the administration of the FOIA across the government. The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy oversees agency compliance with these directives and it is supposed to encourage all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

In 2007, the law was enhanced by the passage of the “Open Government Act.”
The Act is intended “To promote accessibility, accountability, openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.” The Act is also referred to as the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 2007.

According to Sourcewatch, the bill, signed by President Bush, “contains more than a dozen substantive provisions designed to achieve the following four objectives: Strengthen FOIA and close loopholes; Help FOIA requestors obtain timely responses to their requests; Ensure that agencies have strong incentives to act on FOIA requests in a timely fashion; Provide FOIA officials with all of the tools they need to ensure that our government remains open and accessible.”

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMPLIANCE RECORD

As practiced by the Obama Administration, the intentions of the framers of the FOIA law have not been met. In fact, even getting federal agencies to disclose their policy about FOIA compliance has been problematical, according to a National Security Archives study reported in the Washington Free Beacon:

“FOIA regulations for federal agencies were hard to find, inconsistently located, and in some cases apparently non-existent…we ended up having to send 18 FOIA requests to agencies just to try and get their FOIA regulations” said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archives. “Surprisingly, we got a couple of ‘no responsive documents’ denials.”

Many observers, including both those who oppose the current White House as well as those who ardently support it, have explicitly pointed out that President Obama’s administration has acted in defiance of the law.

James Goodale is an ardent supporter of President Obama. He is the leading First Amendment lawyer and former Chief Counsel for the New York Times, well known for representing that news organization in the Pentagon Papers Trials during the Nixon administration. During a recent interview on the Vernuccio/Allison Report radio program, he compared Obama’s record with former President Nixon’s, and noted that Obama’s record is worse.

Washington lawyer Katherine Meyer, who has been filing FOIA cases since 1978, told Politico that:

“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing freedom of information work…it’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst.” The article notes that the White House “aggressively fights FOIA requests on the agency level and in court-sometimes at Obama’s direct orders…the administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers…federal agencies are also throwing up new hurdles…Open government advocates cringed when a Justice Department lawyer told the Supreme Court… [that the Justice Department] disagrees with decades of court rulings that exceptions to FOIA should be ‘narrowly construed.’

J. Christian Adams , who served for half a decade as an attorney in the voting rights section of the U.S. Justice Department protecting the rights of minority voters, has also expressed dismay at the Obama Administration’s lack of compliance with FOIA. In his recent book, “Injustice,” he notes that: “The DOJ’s [Department of Justice] politicization under Obama and its collusion with leftwing activist groups is also evident in the department’s handling of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.”

The Cause of Action organization reports that the Obama Administration habitually refuses to disclose even routine information.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) has noted that nearly two thirds of the Obama Administration’s agencies are failing to comply with FOIA laws.

If surgery, herbal supplements, and stimulation devices are not your super viagra cheap thing, then medication alternative is the right call to be freed of impotence. It seems like many a Los Angeles urologist says, “There’s no question that cialis 10 mg https://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1902-1st-St-Flyer-Lease.pdf the magic Power Coffee company was about to be shut down by the FDA because it’s coffee product was dangerous. Pfizer, by launching the products online levitra canada in the market that claim to be the ultimate option. https://pdxcommercial.com/page/6/?paged-property-main-loop=6&post_type=property&status=For%20Lease female cialis online A disorder of prostate gland interferes with sexual vitality. According to the FOIA Project Obama’s record compares quite unfavorably to that of his predecessor, and that under Eric Holder, “the Justice Department continues to defend whatever information…agencies chose to withhold.”

The Associated Press has reported that during the Obama Administration, 17 major agencies were 50% more likely to deny FOIA requests than under Bush.

Watchdog.org reports that under President Obama, the administration has rejected a third of all FOIA requests.

Nearly half of all requests made by the Bloomberg news agency were never answered. Bloomberg also reports that 19 out of 20 cabinet level agencies failed to comply with requests regarding travel expenses, and only 8 out of 57 responded in a manner consistent with the law.

T he Washington Post has reported that FOIA requests completely denied by the federal government using the excuse of “exemptions” under the law rose more than 10 percent last year, to 25, 636 from 22,834 the previous year.

There have also been reports that evasive maneuvers were engaged in by the White House to avoid establishing records that would be discoverable under FOIA.

In the IRS matter, for example, Jeffrey Lord reports in the American Spectator
that the day before targeting of Tea Party groups began, on March 31, 2010, President Obama met personally with the head of the Treasury Workers Union, Colleen Kelley, who was known to be most vociferous in her views against those organizations.

Similarly, it has been known that Obama officials have held “informal” meetings outside the White House in local eateries in an attempt to evade establishing any evidence of the meetings or records of the issues discussed.

POLITICAL BIAS IN RESPONSE
TO FOIA REQUESTS

In addition to the general lack of compliance with FOIA, government agencies have discriminated against those with philosophies differing from the White House.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has released a study detailing one example:

“Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records.

“Such groups are precisely those Congress and courts made clear FOIA was intended to protect from fees being used as a hurdle to obtaining information, without prejudice as to their perspective. Worse, CEI has now obtained proof of the spectacularly disparate nature of the practice, specifically revealing extraordinarily favorable treatment of the same green groups it’s been shown to be collaborating with on its agenda… In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, Horner found green groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time.

“Moreover, every denial Horner appealed was overturned. “That these denials are ritually overturned on appeal, not after I presented any new evidence or made any new point, but simply restated what was a detailed and heavily sourced legal document to begin with, reaffirms the illegitimacy of these hurdles EPA places in the way of those who cause it problems.” Horner said. “EPA’s practice is to take care of its friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information.”

“The numbers for a sampling of comparable “national” groups are mind-boggling. Of Sierra Club’s 15 requests, EPA granted 11. And Sierra Club received the harshest of treatments. In fact, EPA granted 19 of NRDC’s 20 requests and 17 of EarthJustice’s 19 requests. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility went a perfect 17-for-17. The Waterkeeper Alliance had all three of its requests granted, Greenpeace and the Southern Environmental Law Center each were 2-for-2, the Center for Biological Diversity 4-for-4…”

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, experienced a similar roadblock in 2011. The organization had filed FOIA requests with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concerning that agency’s “stealth amnesty” program. When DHS failed to comply, Judicial Watch sued and won.

FUTURE CHALLENGES

That decision, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) may serve as a precedent that will eventually mean the release of information vital to uncovering the actual, and potentially explosive, facts behind the Benghazi, IRS, and reporter-tapping scandals.

——————————————————————————————————-
On This Memorial Day,
we remember with gratitude all those
who gave their lives
in the defense of freedom

Was the 2012 election valid? The stunning question is disturbing and the potential results are unsettling.

The sum total of the alleged numerous unlawful acts performed by or on behalf of President Obama, his administration and his campaign cumulatively and individually give rise to almost unthinkable issues. These problems involve an entire pattern of potential cover-ups, voter intimidation, electoral abuses and unresolved matters from the 2008 campaign, combined with questions of vote tabulation.

Among the issues in question:

If the facts of the Benghazi disaster swere not covered up, would voters have chosen differently?

What was the net effect of the intimidation of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service?

How many inaccurate or flagrantly fraudulent voters registered by ACORN or others cast ballots?

What was the effect of the Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute clear cases of voter intimidation by Obama supporters in the 2008 election?

What benefit did the Obama campaign reap from the use of the Stimulus program to reward 2008 campaign contributors?
You will be surprised to know that the concerned tablets start acting within thirty minutes of their consumption and work by enhancing the blood flow to penile area in fighting ED. ordering levitra Kamagra is the cheap viagra professional generic http://secretworldchronicle.com/2020/04/ep-9-46-long-time-gone/ solution of erectile dysfunction of men. These sexual issues do not really leave the person so easily and sometimes cheap cialis http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/10/ stay for longer time duration. Kamagra drugsare buy female viagra known as the best generic solution of treat men’s erection problem.
Did the Obama campaign use contact information from the massive increase in individuals receiving federal benefits?

What effect did the failure to timely send military ballots have on votes cast by service members?

What effect did the use of a foreign company to tabulate the votes in 525 jurisdictions in 26 states have on the election results?

In a number of jurisdictions, more votes were cast than registered voters. What effect does the failure to prosecute this matter have on the election results?

In a number of precincts, Mitt Romney received no votes at all What effect did this apparent error have on the overall election results?

Each of these issues deserves a more thorough investigation by an independent, bipartisan commission. The overarching question is whether in sum total, they would have changed the results of the 2012 election. If the answer to that is yes, constitutional scholars, and eventually the United States Supreme Court, will have to decide how to navigate this unchartered territory.

It was revealed for the first time today that the body of murdered Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was recovered by a secret two man Special “Ops” team that was not affiliated with any of the other security entities involved in the Benghazi attack.
This team, acting under their own initiative and armed with their own weapons, undertook this mission despite very little intelligence available for this exceedingly hostile and volatile environment. The information came to light this morning on WVOX’sVernuccio/Allison radio show.
The previously undisclosed information was provided by former Army Ranger Jack Murphy who is the co-author along with Brandon Webb of Benghazi: The Definitive Report.
Murphy described in vivid detail the events of the attack including the fact that the hired gate security unit who came from a local militia brigade were armed only with cricket bats and fled the scene when the first RPG hit the front gate of the Temporary Mission Facility (TMF) around 9:40 PM Benghazi time.
He went on to describe the rescue of the TMF personnel by members of the nearby CIA Annex led by former Navy Seal Tyrone Woods. The rescue unit operated under an informal security agreement with the State Department but the effort was initially resisted by the Chief of Base at the annex. Within ten minutes of their arrival at the TMF, Woods and his team secured the survivors of the attack and the body of Sean Smith, a State Department Communications specialist and returned to the annex without being able to locate and recover Ambassador Stevens due to the intensity of the fire in the building where he was last located and the presence of both attackers and looters who were swarming through the compound.
Side effects can also be minimised by following the above instructions. viagra 100mg This cialis australia online is the best natural cure for erectile dysfunction. Prepared clinically proven chemicals and other substances, the medicine helps the user being sexually hard in the bed and to make coitus activity even viagra in more pleasing. The medicine is available in form of Kamagra. tadalafil price over at this storefront At approximately 1:00 AM on 09/12/2012 Benghazi time a seven man rescue unit arrived from Tripoli, led by former Navy Seal Glen Doherty, who was a friend and colleague of both Woods and the authors. They used $30,000 in cash to commandeer a private plane to fly them to Benghazi where they arrived at approximately 1:00 AM. They were detained by Libyan customs for a variety of reasons that demand further investigation and subsequently did not arrive at the annex until approximately 5:00 AM where a second intensive firefight began. Doherty linked up with Woods on the roof of one of the Annex buildings where both were killed by motor shells within ten minutes of Doherty’s arrival.
With the death of the team leader Doherty, the decision was made to evacuated everyone living, wounded and dead from the annex to the Benghazi airport for ex filtration to Tripoli. Murphy disclosed that one defender of the Annex was so severely wounded that he had to be carried on the back of one of his fellow survivors.
When asked by Allison & Vernuccio why military assistance was not more available and forth coming during this nine hour fire fight, Murphy stated that the military rescue forces were not well positioned and that there was no proper planning for this kind of military eventuality. He further criticized what he characterized an attitude about appropriate security in Libya as being incompetent with a “flippant attitude” and pointedly cited Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management at the State Department as a major obstacle to providing levels of security commensurate with the “high risk” and “high threat” designations that the same State Department and others had bestowed on both Benghazi and Tripoli.
The U.S. House of Representatives is continuing to investigate numerous facets of the Benghazi attack, including why the U.S. military was not instructed to intervene and provide assistance to the beleaguered Americans at the compound, and why survivors of the attack have not been allowed to testify before Congress or speak to the press.

The U.S. Special Forces Colonel who was in charge of security at the American facility in immediately before the attack has completely refuted the White House’s key claims about the 9/11/12 attacks. It appears that the Obama Administration has clearly lied to the American people.
In a startling interview today on the Vernuccio/Allison report, retired Army Special Forces Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, who was the site security team commander in Libya from Feb. 12 to August 14 2012, just weeks before the 9/11/12 attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Stevens, clearly stated that requests for additional security for United States facility in Benghazi before the attack were denied, and that in direct contradiction to repeated White House claims, American military forces could have been used to rescue U.S. personnel there.
Col. Wood requested that he and a group of his men remain at Benghazi prior to the attacks. That request was denied. The colonel’s request for his tour to be extended was also turned down. Without explanation, mobile security elements were also taken away.
According to Wood, “The security system we were given when we first entered the country was working but from the day we entered, though, the State Department seemed to want to alter or cut back on the security formula we had come up with. I was part of the military security that was there to enhance the security for the embassy. As well as other security elements from the state department which were eventually removed. I couldn’t answer fully why…”
Asked why security was weakened, Col Wood replied that “never to his understanding” was “there ever any reason why security was weakened at the facility. It left us defenseless, and I am at a loss to explain why…I could see with time how the [local extremists] were being trained to strike local interests.”
An alkaline diet can help bile return to cialis vs levitra an alkaline state. A relationship is an admixture of some good and bad experiences in life. cialis tadalafil 10mg But due to few problems you may find cialis tablets in india pharmacies which offer no cost shipping. Importantly, repeated heavy use of cialis price robertrobb.com broad-spectrum doxycycline may result in the body flora and make the problem of erectile dysfunction a past affair. The colonel, who with the organization Special Operations Speaks, is calling for a special investigation similar to that which took place during Watergate to fully investigate the matter. He suggested that a joint committee of both House and Senate Members investigate the stonewalling that the White House and the State Department are engaging in.
Asked why the government has prevented Congress and the press from speaking with survivors of the attack. Col. Wood replied that “There are additional details that need to come forth…in classified hearings as well as in public hearings.”
Asked about the White House’s comments that a little-known video was the cause for the attack, Col. Wood replied that the Administration’s month-long insistence on blaming the almost totally unknown video for the assault indicated that “something just isn’t right…something went wrong….[either] its simple ineptness…or something went wrong and somebody is trying to cover it up…somebody may have been doing something they shouldn’t have been trying to do. ..the whole idea of the video as an excuse strikes me as somebody trying to cover something up as well…”
Asked why the U.S. didn’t use its substantial military assets in the region to rescue our Benghazi personnel, Col. Wood replied that “That will remain a mystery until we get more people to come forward and speak as to what happened and answer as to what happened…I know assets where available, I know I was able to access assets should something have gone wrong while I was there. I was told these assets were on standby…why they were not used during this event is just maddening to me…I can’t understand it, it left Americans in harm’ way. It leaves them to be destroyed by their enemies as other Americans stood by and watched, which is totally wrong and totally against anything we have ever done.”

The history of warfare is filled with the constant evolution of increasingly dangerous and more ingenious weapons and tactics. Prehistoric man replaced rocks with spears. Bows and arrows were developed. Gunpowder superseded them. Tanks made cavalry obsolete, airplanes and helicopters made mobility a key factor. Missiles with nuclear warheads are now the mark of a major power. History may be turning yet another corner, as our civilization becomes so heavily dependent on computers that the ability to manipulate an opponent’s systems for aggressive purposes becomes a potent weapon.

America faces a number of cyberspace threats. The most serious are from those wishing to engage in espionage to steal both military and technological secrets, and from those who wish to turn the nation’s own computer systems against it by dismantling defense systems and committing sabotage against key civilian infrastructure. Cyber attacks have escalated by 1,700% since 2009, costing intellectual property theft losses over $400 billion.

An armed attack following a cyber assault would be exceptionally effective. Key defense systems could be disabled, leading to a military that is deaf, dumb, and blind, defending a nation that may have its electrical, energy, water, transportation and other crucial systems heavily disrupted.

Last July, General Keith Alexander, the commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, openly worried that the United States was not adequately prepared for a cyber attack. He noted that on a scale one one to ten in preparedness, the U.S. was at about a three. He emphasized that the time to stop a cyber attack is less than a minute–far less time than preparing for an incoming missile attack.

The Mandiant Corporation has just released a scathing expose of China’s aggressive, persistent and wide scale assault on American computer systems. The organization has been tracking Beijing’s threat for several years. In 2004, it reported that the ongoing attacks on global systems, which they referred to as “Advanced Persistent Threats,” (APT) were probably authorized by the Chinese Government.

The federal government has been cognizant of the threat for some time. In 2011, U.S. Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) warned that: “China’s economic espionage has reached an intolerable level and I believe that the United States and our allies in Europe and Asia have an obligation to confront Beijing and demand that they put a stop to this piracy.”

That same year, The Office of the U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive reported to Congress that “foreign economic collection and industrial espionage against the United States represent significant and growing threats to the nation’s prosperity and security. Cyberspace–where most business activity and development of new ideas now takes place–amplifies these threats by making it possible for malicious actions, whether they are corrupted insiders or foreign intelligence services (FIS) to quickly steal and transfer massive quantities of data while remaining anonymous and hard to detect.”

While there are a number of private and governmental actors somewhat active in cyber espionage, as well as several who could be seen as potential assailants in a cyber attack, two stand out far more than the rest: China and Russia. (Iran is also seen as a lesser but significant threat.) According to the National Counterintelligence Office, “Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. U.S. private sector firms and cyber security specialists have reported an onslaught of computer network intrusions that have originated in China, but the IC cannot confirm who was responsible. Russia’s intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.”

The Mandiant Report settles the question of who in China is responsible for that nation’s cyber attacks and cyber espionage. Beijing’s armed forces are clearly at the center of the threat. Specifically, a shadowy unit of the People’s Liberation Army known as the 2nd Bureau, operating within the General Staff Department’s 3rd Department, most commonly known as Unit 61398. According to the report, Unit 61398 is physically located in the Pudong New Area of Shanghai, at a 130,663 square foot building built in 2007. Staffing may be in the thousands, by personnel who are not only training in computer security but in the English language as well.

Shanghai, the location of Unit 61398

According to the report, Unit 61398, which Mandiant calls Advanced Persistent Threat 1 (APT1) “has systematically stolen hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organizations, and has demonstrated the capability and intent to steal from dozens of organizations simultaneously…Apt1 focuses on compromising organizations across a broad range of industries in English speaking countries… [and] maintains an extensive infrastructure of computer systems around the world.”

The powerful nature of a computer-assaulting organization that is a direct part of the Chinese military made the decision to release this information a risky one for Mandiant, which notes that it is “Acutely aware of the risk this report poses for us. We expect reprisals from China as well as an onslaught of criticism.” The reality of a foreign military attacking an American corporation for performing its civic duty in revealing a threat of this type should not be lost on anyone. It is, in essence, the beginning of a new level both of warfare, and of a fundamental threat to American free speech rights.

General Alexander has noted that China’s espionage efforts have resulted in “The greatest transfer of wealth in history.”

The Department of Defense notes that China makes extensive use of stolen military technology, saving their armed forces billions of dollars and decades of time. Following major security breeches in the Clinton administration, including the transfer of a supercomputer, security measures were enhanced, but were loosened again under President Obama.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The reality of a foreign military attacking an American corporation for performing its civic duty in revealing a threat of this type should not be lost on anyone. It is, in essence, the beginning of a new level both of warfare, and of a fundamental threat to American free speech rights.
_____________________________________________________________________

A number of Republicans in Congress and the White House have supported legislation enhancing American cyber security, but legitimate concerns about further enhancing the federal government’s power have stymied enactment attempts. Rep. Rogers, a Michign Republican, has written extensively on America’s vulnerability to cyber attacks. He has described the potential of “cyber catastrophes” and has introduced bipartisan legislation, along with Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Mo.)

Rogers has also emphasized that the U.S. government should enact a price from the Chinese government for their assaults and espionage. According to a Bloomberg news report, one American metallurgical company, for example, lost technology worth a billion dollars spent over a decade of development time to Chinese computer espionage.

As a stopgap measure, President Obama issued an executive order on February 12 providing an optional means for key infrastructure companies to give government contractors near real-time information about cyber attacks.

According to Information Week’s Matthew Schwartz, the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force both individually requested vendors to prepare concepts for defending against cyber attacks.

When the New York Analysis began researching the issue of cyber warfare in 2012, the problem was one that received comparatively little attention in the media. The Obama Administration had previously made a decision that confronting this serious threat to the U.S., and indeed western, national security was not worth the risk of endangering Sino-American relations.

Recent revelations, which came not from federal intelligence agencies but from the private sector, have disclosed that intrusions into defense, government, corporate and journalistic computers came not from hackers or civilians, but from the Chinese armed forces themselves. The continuous scale and scope of assaults on the systems of America and its allies leads to the inescapable conclusion that China is conducting warfare-caliber operations against Western computers.

Sildenafil citrate is the key ingredient of levitra prices into kamagra let the patients avail a high quality treatment. Pellets: This particular type of erectile dysfunction medication you take, you take only after consultation with a web-based doctor before you viagra purchase uk . Aside from the usual pain reliever and cialis generic wholesale anti-inflammatory medications to manage the pain and discomfort. Several surveys sildenafil viagra have shown that male impotency is a reason for why women get incapability of getting pregnant.
The recent assault on South Korean financial and media computer systems is now reported to have originated, at the request of North Korea, from China. This is indicative of the extraordinary scope and activism of China’s cyber war efforts. A recent report in the Wall Street Journal noted that “The world has never seen a state devote such large resources to siphoning off data from private companies to advance a broad range of national interests, political and economic. China’s penchant for online theft and sabotage could change the world economic order.”

In a recent Washington Times article, Cheryl Chumley quoted an industry expert who believes that “Cybersercurity is to 2013 what the space program was to the 1950s and 1960s, and the United States is in an aggressive race with China and Russia to develop cyberweapons that can damage infrastructure.”

Cyber war has already emerged from the pages of science fiction onto real world battlefields. General Keith Alexander has noted that this offensive technology has been employed in disputes throughout the former Soviet empire in Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgystan. In a delayed response to this threat, DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) and various other portions of the U.S. defense establishment have attempted to provide the U.S. with cyber war capabilities, some of which may have been used against Iran’s nuclear development program.

While American computer systems have already been subjected to serious assaults from China, the possibility exists for even more harsh attacks. It would not take an all-out war for this to occur. A Beijing assault against Taiwan, or even aggressive action against American allies in the Philippines, Japan, or South Korea, as has already occurred within the past year could prompt a preliminary move to neutralize any American response. A Slatemagazine article posed the very real question: would an American president rush to aide an ally if it meant that a key infrastructure system, for example, the electrical grid of America’s eastern seaboard, could be destroyed via a cyber attack?

American efforts are considerably late. Defense authority Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Free Beacon, reports that President Obama turned down “a serious of options designed to dissuade China from further attacks” during a three month period starting in August 2011. The result of this decision has been further vulnerability of the U.S. private sector, which according to U.S. cyber commander General Keith Alexander may cost American industry about $250 billion annually.

Cyber war has already emerged from the pages of science fiction onto real world battlefields.

While the White House has finally acknowledged the threat, its response appears to be tepid. An executive order issued on February 13, 2013, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber security” attempts to facilitate increased vigilance and protective measures within the private sector. The Administration has also criticized its own federal agencies, other than the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration, for not making adequate progress towards the 2014 gal of enhanced cyber security.

The National Security Council has outlined the President’s “10 point near-term actions” to support a cyber strategy policy:

• Appoint a cybersecurity policy official responsible for coordinating the Nation’s cybersecurity policies and activities.
• Prepare for the President’s approval an updated national strategy to secure the information and communications infrastructure.
• Designate cybersecurity as one of the President’s key management priorities and establish performance metrics
• Designate a privacy and civil liberties official to the NSC cybersecurity directorate.
• Conduct interagency-cleared legal analyses of priority cybersecurity- related issues.
• Initiate a national awareness and education campaign to promote cybersecurity.
• Develop an international cybersecurity policy framework and strengthen our international partnerships.
• Prepare a cybersecurity incident response plan and initiate a dialog to enhance public-private partnerships.
• Develop a framework for research and development strategies that focus on game-changing technologies that have the potential to enhance the security, reliability, resilience, and trustworthiness of digital infrastructure.
• Build a cyber security-based identity management vision and strategy, leveraging privacy-enhancing technologies for the Nation.

A reasonable argument could be made that while these steps are all appropriate and necessary, they completely fail to provide any penalty for the dramatic and costly theft of American civilian and military technology-valued at $250 billion annually for many years-taken by China’s military, or to put forth a suggested response for similar ongoing and future actions by Beijing’s armed forces.

In what can only be seen as a weak response to China’s actions, the president’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon recently stated that Chinese leaders need to “recognize the urgency and scope of the problem, along with the risks it imposes to international trade and to the regulation of Chinese industry in the world.”

The Washington Post reported on March 10 that the President signed a classified directive that requires an “imminent” or ongoing threat of an attack that could result in death or damage to the national security before a military cyber-action can be taken to thwart it. This is, in essence, a form of unilateral American disarmament in the face of the massive Chinese heist of private U.S. Industrial/intellectual property.

The costs to the taxpayer may be even greater, both in terms of jobs, investment, and future defense expenses. The vast sums appropriated to pay for cutting-edge military technology by U.S. citizens has been appropriated to pay for China’s armed forces, which thanks to the stolen information, now equal America’s.

The vast sums appropriated to pay for cutting-edge military technology by U.S. citizens has been appropriated to pay for China’s armed forces, which thanks to the stolen information, now equal America’s.

The legislative branch has been concerned about this growing challenge for some time. Previously, the New York Analysis reported on the bipartisan efforts of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MO). In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman (Ind-CT) introduced S. 2105-the “Cybersecurity Act of 2012,” which “Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, and other federal agencies and private sector gencis, to: (1) conduct a top-level assessment of cybersecurity risks to determine which sectors face the greatest imminent riskes, and beginning with the sectors identified as having the highest priority, conduct, on a sector-by sector basis, cyber risk assessment of the critical infrastructure; (2) establish a procedure for the designation of critical infrastructure; (3) identify and develop risk-based cybersecurity performance requirements; and (4) implement cyber response and restoration plans. Set forth requirements for securing critical infrastructure, including notification of cyber risks and threats and reporting of significant incidents affecting critical infrastructure.”

In addition to Russia, China, and the U.S., nations such as Iran and India are rapidly developing cyber war technologies.

As this article was being finalized, the Washington Post reported that American intelligence assets have been so devoted to anti-terrorist duties that they may have provided inadequate attention to the larger threats from China, Russia and other key threats.