Category: NY Analysis

NY Analysis of Policy & Government

Why is crime increasing?

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date July 16, 2015

For two decades, reports on crime had been encouraging. The Society Pages noted that “both violent and property crimes have dropped steadily and substantially for nearly twenty years. Whether looking to ‘official’ crime (reported to the police) or victimization surveys, the story is the same—both violent and property crimes have dropped like a stone.”

But that trend appears to be reversing. USATODAY reports “After seeing years of decline in violent crime, several major American cities experienced a dramatic surge in homicides during the first half of this year.

“Milwaukee, which had one of its lowest annual homicide totals in city history last year, has recorded 84 murders so far this year, more than double the 41 it tallied at the same point last year. Milwaukee is not alone.

“Baltimore, New Orleans and St. Louis have also seen the number of murders jump 33% or more in 2015. Meanwhile, Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, has seen the homicide toll climb by 19% and the number of shooting incidents increase in the city by 21% during the first half of the year.

The New York Daily News asked why there is an almost simultaneous increase in so many cities. “Why is there a synchronicity among these cities?” said Peter Scharf, an assistant professor at the LSU School of Public Health whose research focuses on crime. “One reason may be President Obama is broke. Governors like Bobby Jindal are broke, and mayors like (New Orleans’ Mitch) Landrieu are broke. You don’t have the resources at any level of government to fund a proactive law enforcement.”

Excepts from the Daily News research: “So far this year, Baltimore has recorded 155 homicides, including three people who were killed late Tuesday evening near the University of Maryland, Baltimore campus. The 2015 homicide toll is 50 higher than it was at the same point last year. The Charm City, which is seeing some of the worst violence since the 1990s when it routinely tallied 300 murders annually, recorded 42 killings in May alone.

“In St. Louis, there have been 93 homicides compared with 58 at the same point last year. The increased violence this year in St. Louis follows the city recording a more than 30% increase in murders in 2014, when police in the city saw a steep rise in violence following the shooting death last August of Michael Brown, a black teenager, in nearby Ferguson by a white police officer. Police have made arrests in only 29 of the 2015 homicide cases, suggesting witnesses are increasingly showing a reluctance to come forward. St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said that he’s increasingly looking to federal authorities to get involved in cases in the city in the hopes of spurring witnesses to come forward. St. Louis Police and several federal agencies also plan to announce a new partnership next week aimed at reducing the violence in the city.

“Chicago’s homicide toll stood at 203 as of June 28, up from 171 at the same time last year, according to police stats. The city is still well below pace of 2012, when Chicago recorded more than 500 murders for the entire year.

“Meanwhile, Houston Police reported 73 murders in the first quarter of 2015, compared with 46 during the same period last year. The police department for the fourth-largest U.S. city has yet to release its murder tally for the second quarter of 2015.

“Minneapolis had 22 murders in the first half of 2015, compared with 15 during the same period last year.

“In Washington, D.C., the homicide count stands at 73 compared with 62 last year.”

The L.A. Times reports that “Crime surged across Los Angeles in the first six months of this year despite a campaign by the Los Angeles Police Department to place more officers on the streets and target certain types of offenses. Los Angeles recorded a 12.7% increase in overall crime, ending more than a decade of declines and raising concerns about what more officials can do to reverse the trend.”

REASONS

Why has crime made a comeback throughout the nation? Some believe it may have much to do with anti-police rhetoric. In New York City, for example, has an outstanding police force renowned for both exceptional efficiency and fairness. Despite that, the Big Apple’s current Mayor, Bill De Blasio campaigned using anti-police rhetoric. The state governor has urged his attorney general to pursue cases involving police shootings. Homicides in New York have risen in 2015.

Heather MacDonald, writing in the New York Times, notes “One possible explanation is that officers have become reluctant to engage in proactive policing because of the vitriol they have faced over the last nine months, a hypothesis based on interviews with officers, the observations of commanders, and past experience. The claim, frequently repeated in the media, that police routinely kill young black men has led to riots, sometimes violent protests and attacks on officers… In November, Chief Sam Dotson of the St. Louis Police referred to the “Ferguson effect”: officers backing away from discretionary enforcement under charges of racism, thereby emboldening criminals. At that point, arrests in St. Louis city and county had dropped a third since the August shooting of Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson. Homicides in the city had surged 47 percent and robberies in the county were up 82 percent. In Baltimore, arrests dropped 56 percent this May since the protests and riots over the death of Freddie Gray, while shootings so far this year are up more than 60 percent compared to the same period last year.”

CNN reported: “One obvious difference between last year and this year is the tensions between police officers and certain communities. The high-profile instances of police officers killing unarmed black men stirred outrage and protests.There is an understanding that somehow things have changed — or must change — in a post-Michael Brown, post-Freddie Gray, post-Eric Garner America.The debate on whether police reform is needed or whether more aggressive policing is necessary is often political. The early 2015 murder statistics are providing evidence for both sides.

“If there’s a national mood that starts to see police as the bad guys, the police as the enemy responsible for these problems, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to police,” said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and professor of policing. “One way that cops deal with that is that they just stop policing those people.”

“A former New York Police Department officer, Bill Stanton, agreed that an uptick in crime can be linked to police being less assertive. When you take away police pride and you take away giving them the benefit of the doubt … and you’re going to call them racist and you’re going to prosecute them for doing nothing wrong,” Stanton said, “then what happens is they’re going to roll back. They’re not going to go that extra mile.”

Illegal Immigration may be a factor

The increase in illegal immigration may also play a role. Infowars notes that “Unfortunately, our current policy is allowing hordes of lawless young men to come flooding into this country, and as a result gang membership is absolutely exploding. The FBI says that there are approximately 1.4 million gang members in the United States at this point, and that number has risen by an astounding 40 percent just since 2009…And these gangs are starting to gain a stranglehold on communities all over the nation…According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.”

The Center for Immigration Studies has reported that:

“A review of internal ICE metrics for 2013 reveals that hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens who were identified in the interior of the country were released instead of removed under the administration’s sweeping “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines. In 2013, ICE reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens, only about one-fourth. According to ICE personnel, the vast majority of these releases occurred because of current policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement, not because the aliens turned out to have legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States.

Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals. In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims.

These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration’s pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration’s abuse of “prosecutorial discretion”. Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of “prosecutorial discretion” policies in 2011.¹ Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president’s policies.

Key Findings

In 2013, ICE charged only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE’s attention after incarceration for a local arrest.
ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable.
ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation from the interior in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs.
Every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity, with the largest decline in the Atlanta field office, which covers Georgia and the Carolinas.
ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.
Under current policies, an alien’s family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case.
Less than 2 percent of ICE’s caseload was in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013.
About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute. This suggests the need for more detention capacity, so ICE can avoid releasing so many deportable criminal aliens.”

Diebler referred to his record as something “cool” that he will not be able generic cialis prices to linger long. Rather, the usage of these pills take effect only when buy levitra online men have the urge to make love. Buy Penegra 100 using these reliable online sildenafil rx pharmacies and experience rejuvenated pleasures making impotence easy to handle. viagra prescription Any sexual issues should be taken seriously and timely evaluated.

Tags crime, illegal immigration, rise in crime

NY Analysis

Obama must explain his Middle Eastern policy

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date June 29, 2015

As it becomes evident that the Iranian nuclear talks will be extended, after 18 months of negotiations, yet again beyond a deadline, the entire Obama/Clinton strategy towards the Middle East must be called into question. The Obama Administration’s policies in the region have completely failed, and it’s unwillingness to provide reasonable explanations of both its tactics and goals must be called into question.

Whatever the current White House’s opinions of the war fought to vanquish Saddam Hussein’s reign over Iraq, the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from that nation by President Obama opened up a power vacuum that has been filled by ISIS. Why were there no contingency plans to deal with this very obvious outcome?

If President Obama had, as a key goal, the avoidance of armed conflict in the Middle East and the removal of the U.S. military, why did he commit U.S. armed forces to play a key role in the ouster of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi? Gaddafi had renounced and disbanded his nuclear program, and broken his ties to terrorists. He was on the same side as the West in opposing al Qaeda. That decision clearly indicates to Iran that there is no benefit in siding with the U.S. on nuclear disarmament and opposing terrorism.

The result of the President’s decision was a clear victory for terrorists in the region. That opens up the next issue. Why was an attack mounted on the American facility in Benghazi, and why did both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department work so vigorously to mislead the public about an unknown video being the cause? Why were air, sea, and land forces prohibited from mounting a rescue attempt? According to discussions by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government with experienced retired military personnel, the allegations that no American forces were within range is completely false. Why have relevant documents not been released, and relevant personnel not been allowed to testify?

Similarly, why did the White House side with the radical and violent Muslim Brotherhood against the pro-peace, U.S.-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak? When the Muslim Brotherhood took power and began committing atrocities, why did President Obama remain silent—until the Muslim Brotherhood was in turn ousted, and the White House then decided to protest that ouster?

Further south in Africa, the Boko Haram, a terrorist organization now affiliated with ISIS, has been noted for some time for its atrocities, particularly against young women. Despite its obvious and well-known reputation, the White House and the Clinton State Department avoided placing the organization on the terrorist list. Why? And, in the wake of revelations regarding a potential financial incentive for Ms. Clinton to fail to be truthful regarding Boko Haram, why hasn’t the White House acted?

Why didn’t the White House act in a timely manner to assist the anti-terrorist leadership in Yemen, when it had clear and abundant warnings of the threat against the government there?

Why did the Obama Administration ignore its own “Red Line” with Syria?

Why has the Obama Administration gone out of its way to publicly castigate the Israelis, who are our most dependable ally in the region?

The questions about Iran, arguably the leading anti-American power in the region, are the most central to the inquiries about the Obama Administrations’ goals and practices. The regime in Tehran is vehemently and militantly anti-U.S., evidenced by instances of its government officials repeatedly chanting “Death to America” and its military practicing assaults on U.S. naval assets.

According to the Clarion Project:
Thus hardening occurs with increase in penile length among certain human beings is mainly attributed to genetic factors, which is again controlled to a large extent on the physical relationship between the couples. cialis pills wholesale We have to believe that a great percentage of patients receiving spinal manipulation have been relieved from generic viagra purchase pain and the recurrence of pain was lessened. However, in the present generation, the younger generation too are consuming the pill to enhance their sexual intimacy. cialis 20 mg Some of the generic medicines that are made with that exact the same ingredient are branded as Kamagra, Silagra, and Kamagra oral jelly, Caverta, Zenegra, Zenegra, http://greyandgrey.com/history/ generic levitra, and Forzest etc.
“Iran has been on the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1984. Its 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Iran is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Syrian regime (also labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism), Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militants in Bahrain and Shiite militias in Iraq.5 The State Department confirmed that Iran continues to work with Al-Qaeda elements, despite their expressed hostility towards one another. It stated: ‘Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaeda (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saq al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. . Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli began working with the Iranbased AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities. He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.’

“ Iran operates a global network, including in the U.S. and South America. In May 2013, a 500 page report by an Argentine state prosecutor said Iran has an “intelligence and terrorist network” in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad, Tobago and Suriname and elsewhere.6 The State Department also said Iran increased its presence in Africa. Iran is also known to work closely with North Korea on weapons of mass destruction programs. The IRGC is believed to have a presence in Sudan (another State Sponsor of Terrorism), where it oversees a supply route to Hamas.”

Despite all that, the President Obama’s policies towards Iran have been apparently intentionally weak and ineffective:

When the “Green Revolution” opposed the extremist Tehran regime, it was one of the only “Arab Spring” movements not supported by the White House.

The White House has softened its stance on sanctions against Tehran.

There has been no significant White House response to Iranian and Iranian-backed forces moving into Latin America.

Secretary of State Clinton facilitated the transfer of uranium to Russia while Moscow was assisting Iran’s nuclear program

American air strikes against ISIS have been miniscule compared to past U.S. efforts against other aggressors, as Washington has allowed Iranian forces to achieve Tehran’s long-sought after goal of expanding its power in Iraq under the excuse of fighting that force.

The White House has allowed deadlines to be breached in nuclear talks with Iran, allowing that nation vital time to actually achieve the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The White House owes the American people and Congress an immediate, clear and thorough explanation of its Middle Eastern goals and practices.

Tags al Qaeda, Boko Haram, deadline with Iran, Iran, Iran and terrorism, Iran's nuclear program, Iranian negotiations, Obama and terrorism, Obama's Middle Eastern olicy, U.S. middle Eastern policy

NY Analysis

International Trade and Modern Slavery

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 21, 2015

Should the United States do business with nations that tacitly condone human trafficking? According to some critics, the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement will increase the challenge of modern slavery.

According to the End Slavery Now organization, Between 21 and 30 million people are enslaved throughout the world. That averages out to about 1 out of every 280 people on the planet.

The U.S. State Department notes:

“The United States government considers trafficking in persons to include all of the criminal conduct involved in forced labor and sex trafficking, essentially the conduct involved in reducing or holding someone in compelled service. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as amended (TVPA) and consistent with the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol), individuals may be trafficking victims regardless of whether they once consented, participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked, were transported into the exploitative situation, or were simply born into a state of servitude. Despite a term that seems to connote movement, at the heart of the phenomenon of trafficking in persons are the many forms of enslavement, not the activities involved in international transportation.

Forced Labor

Also known as involuntary servitude, forced labor may result when unscrupulous employers exploit workers made more vulnerable by high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, discrimination, corruption, political conflict, or even cultural acceptance of the practice. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable, but individuals also may be forced into labor in their own countries. Female victims of forced or bonded labor, especially women and girls in domestic servitude, are often sexually exploited as well.

Sex Trafficking

When an adult is coerced, forced, or deceived into prostitution – or maintained in prostitution through coercion – that person is a victim of trafficking. All of those involved in recruiting, transporting, harboring, receiving, or obtaining the person for that purpose have committed a trafficking crime. Sex trafficking can also occur within debt bondage, as women and girls are forced to continue in prostitution through the use of unlawful “debt” purportedly incurred through their transportation, recruitment, or even their crude “sale,” which exploiters insist they must pay off before they can be free.

It is critical to understand that a person’s initial consent to participate in prostitution is not legally determinative; if an individual is thereafter held in service through psychological manipulation or physical force, that person is a trafficking victim and should receive the benefits outlined in the United Nations’ Palermo Protocol and applicable laws.

Bonded Labor

One form of coercion is the use of a bond, or debt. Often referred to as “bonded labor” or “debt bondage,” the practice has long been prohibited under U.S. law by its Spanish name, peonage, and the Palermo Protocol calls for its criminalization as a form of trafficking in persons. Workers around the world fall victim to debt bondage when traffickers or recruiters unlawfully exploit an initial debt the worker assumed as part of the terms of employment. Workers may also inherit intergenerational debt in more traditional systems of bonded labor.

Debt Bondage Among Migrant Laborers

Abuses of contracts and hazardous conditions of employment for migrant laborers do not necessarily constitute human trafficking. However, the burden of illegal costs and debts on these laborers in the source country, often with the support of labor agencies and employers in the destination country, can contribute to a situation of debt bondage. This is often exacerbated when the worker’s status in the country is tied to the employer in the context of employment-based temporary work programs and there is no effective redress for abuse.

Involuntary Domestic Servitude

tadalafil soft Mercury toxicity can lead to health hazards; it is a poisonous element which should be avoided after a substantial or heavy meal. To keep yourself healthy and happy you, need to perform sex with you partner. online cialis generic davidfraymusic.com The dosage http://davidfraymusic.com/2018/01/ buy cialis is usually a 25mg tablet, which is then increased over time or as your practitioner deems fit. It’s already been recognized to trigger patients’ genitals to reduce. viagra delivery canada A unique form of forced labor is the involuntary servitude of domestic workers, whose workplace is informal, connected to their off-duty living quarters, and not often shared with other workers. Such an environment, which often socially isolates domestic workers, is conducive to nonconsensual exploitation since authorities cannot inspect private property as easily as formal workplaces. Investigators and service providers report many cases of untreated illnesses and, tragically, widespread sexual abuse, which in some cases may be symptoms of a situation of involuntary servitude. Ongoing international efforts seek to ensure that not only that administrative remedies are enforced but also that criminal penalties are enacted against those who hold others in involuntary domestic servitude.

Forced Child Labor

Most international organizations and national laws recognize that children may legally engage in certain forms of work. There is a growing consensus, however, that the worst forms of child labor should be eradicated. The sale and trafficking of children and their entrapment in bonded and forced labor are among these worst forms of child labor. A child can be a victim of human trafficking regardless of the location of that exploitation. Indicators of forced labor of a child include situations in which the child appears to be in the custody of a non-family member who has the child perform work that financially benefits someone outside the child’s family and does not offer the child the option of leaving. Anti-trafficking responses should supplement, not replace, traditional actions against child labor, such as remediation and education. However, when children are enslaved, their abusers should not escape criminal punishment by virtue of longstanding patters of limited responses to child labor practices rather than more effective law enforcement action.

Child Soldiers

Child soldiering can be a manifestation of human trafficking where it involves the unlawful recruitment or use of children—through force, fraud, or coercion—as combatants, or for labor or sexual exploitation by armed forces. Perpetrators may be government forces, paramilitary organizations, or rebel groups. Many children are forcibly abducted to be used as combatants. Others are made unlawfully to work as porters, cooks, guards, servants, messengers, or spies. Young girls can be forced to marry or have sex with male combatants. Both male and female child soldiers are often sexually abused and are at high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.”

The web site Human Trafficking Search.net adds another, and terrifying, form of slavery: forcing people to surrender their organs.

The issue of modern slavery has gained more public attention due to the debate following President Obama’s push to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty.

Sister Jeanne Christensen, writing in The Hill, states: “I am deeply troubled by the recent turn of events in the Senate as the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill is debated. Initially, I was encouraged to see the Senate Finance Committee pass the No Fast Track for Human Traffickers amendment when it approved the current TPA legislation, the Congressional Bipartisan Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.The No Fast Track for Human Traffickers amendment, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), received overwhelming bipartisan support and stipulates that the United States cannot enter into formal trade agreements with countries that the State Department identifies as Tier 3 in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report…I raise this question because I am disturbed that corporate lobbyists and the Obama administration are now working to push the Senate to water down or completely strip the Menendez amendment. …Are cheap products from unscrupulous governments worth more to us than ending modern-day slavery?”

According to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ): “ We’re outraged that 36 million women, children and men around the world are subjected to involuntary labor or sexual exploitation. We’re outraged when we hear that over five million of them are children – that forced labor generates about 150-plus-billion-dollars in profits annually, the second largest income source for international criminals next to the drug trade. For the victims of these crimes, the term ‘modern slavery’ more starkly describes what is happening around the world…he Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires that the State Department annually publish a Trafficking in Persons – or TIP – Report that ranks each country based on the extent of government action to combat trafficking. Tier 3 is the worst of these rankings. It indicates that a government does not comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so. Tier 3 countries are those that have not even taken the most basic steps to address their human trafficking problem, and have not provided protection for trafficking victims.

“And, in the most recent TIP report published, the State Department ranked 23 countries as Tier 3. Countries like North Korea, Iran, and Cuba have flaunted international legal norms and threatened to upend global security. And I am most disappointed to say that Malaysia, a middle-income country by most standards — a party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations — has the resources and wherewithal to address human trafficking within its borders, but has for years now failed to take sufficient action to warrant an upgrade on the TIP report.”

In 2000, the United States enacted the Human Trafficking Protection Act, described by Rescue. Org:

“The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 created the first comprehensive federal law to address human trafficking, with a significant focus on the international dimension of the problem. The law provided a three-pronged approach: prevention through public awareness programs overseas and a State Department-led monitoring and sanctions program; protection through a new T-Visa and services for foreign national victims; and prosecution through new federal crimes. The TVPA was reauthorized through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003, the TVPRA of 2005, and the TVPRA of 2008, which included greater protections for U.S. citizen victims, enhanced and enacted new human trafficking crimes, enhanced victim service provisions, and strengthened the role of the Trafficking in Persons Office within the State Department.”

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) has introduced legislation that would use fines paid by sex traffickers to assist victims. Democrats are holding up that bill, insisting that some of the proceeds be used to pay for abortions.

Also introduced this year in the U.S. Senate is S. 553. proposed by Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn) The “End Modern Slavery Initiative Act,” which would establish the End Modern Slavery Foundation “to work with government, civil society, and private institutions in partner countries and key jurisdictions of other countries supported by the Foundation with a high prevalence of modern slavery to identify and fund successful strategies to combat modern slavery. The U.S. government shall seek other foreign governments providing Foundation support to provide additional support for projects in partner countries.”

Tags human trafficking, international trade, modern slavery, TPP

NY Analysis

The cost of cutting coal

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 14, 2015

On April 8, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced that it will invest an additional $30 million in the Sierra Club to secure the replacement of half the nation’s coal fleet by 2017 with clean energy.

How feasible is the goal of replacing coal with renewable energy? How necessary is the move?

John Miller, writing in The Energy Collective notes that “Coal electric power generation is under enormous regulatory pressure to substantially reduce stack emissions. The EPA requires huge reductions in most coal plant emissions including carbon dioxide (CO₂). As a result, most new coal power plant projects are being cancelled and many existing coal plants are expected to shutdown prematurely… Analysis of DOE/EIA evaluations of proposed Clean Energy regulations find extremely complex solutions involving expansion of all types of clean energy. In addition, the Federal solutions to replacing coal include very complex systems of emissions/clean energy credits, establishing a carbon credit system (cap-and-trade) and purchasing substantial world market carbon credits. My personal review and analysis of these proposed Clean Energy regulations and Government Agency’s evaluations finds the claimed compliance costs to be significantly underestimated.”

Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, wrote on the Penn energy site: “Coal will be central to economic modernization in the developing world, where most energy supply will be built in the next three decades. Coal will also have a significant residual role in much of the OECD. Coal is not going away. We need to begin to use it without emitting significant carbon dioxide, and quickly. If we don’t, the risk to global climate is immense, and likely irreversible. It’s that straightforward. People who wish otherwise, and simply hope for the demise of coal, are not facing the facts.”

Can coal be replaced by renewables?

Christopher Helman, writing in Forbes, points out the challenges: “ Even after a decade of rampant growth solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. In fact, solar merely equals the amount of electricity that the nation generates by burning natural gas captured from landfills. And it’s only slightly more meaningful than the 7.3 million Mwh we get from burning human waste strained out of municipal sewer systems.

“Indeed, when you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.

“The biggest sources are the old standbys. Oil still reigns supreme at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads, nuclear 8. Hydropower and biomass bring up the rear at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is just 1.5 quads. And coal — the great carbon-belching demon of the global energy mix — its contribution is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined.

“The assumption, by policy makers like President Obama, is that the country can cut carbon emissions by closing coal plants, while making up for the lost electricity by burning more natural gas and building more solar and wind. Indeed, natural gas has taken a bite out of coal. In 2013,coal production from U.S. mines fell to 995.8 million short tons. The last time it was that low was in the late 1980s. Coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.17 billion short tons…

“Natural gas prices have already jumped three-fold in two years. And coal-to-gas switching has already reversed. From making up 40% of the national electricity mix in the first quarter of 2013, coal’s share rose to 41.4% in the first quarter of 2014. Natural gas dipped from 25.6% of total power generation a year ago, to 23.8% in the first quarter of 2014.

Alyson Kenward, writing in climatecentral.org, Notes that “Ignoring the costs, here are some of the ways the U.S. could replace enough coal power to meet an 80 percent clean energy sources target by 2035.

“Build 243 hydroelectric dams that have Hoover Dam’s generating capacity(that’s 10 new dams a year, on average). Mind you, that means we would also need 243 mighty rivers like the Colorado that don’t already have dams on them. There aren’t enough rivers left in the U.S. to support that number of large dams, and smaller dams alone can’t generate enough electricity to replace coal power plants.

We could build 194,900 wind turbines, each having 2 megawatts (MW) of capacity (a typical size). That would mean building more than 8,000 new turbines each year, or 22 turbines a day, every day, for 24 years. Even if this is doable, we’d also have to overhaul the U.S. electrical grid, and add a way to store electricity, in order to safely and reliably use the intermittent flow of electricity that comes from wind turbines.
We could build 64 new nuclear power plants the size of New York’s Indian Pointpower station. Since theFukushima disaster in Japan last spring, however, that kind of construction rate, with nearly four nuclear plants being built each year, no longer seems realistic. And keep in mind, the U.S. hasn’t built a new nuclear plant in over 20 years.
We could build 10,200 solar energy farms — but each one would have to be the size of Nevada’s Copper Mountain solar array, which is currently the country’s largest. The amount of space needed for this number of solar panels: an area about three times the size of Delaware.”

Erectile buy viagra in stores discover now dysfunction is indicated when an erection fall short considering mental thoughts or feelings. Most infertility cases are pfizer viagra 100mg treatable, let us now check out the causes and treatment options. The condition of cheap sildenafil india robertrobb.com Erectile Dysfunction can cause situations such as divorce, breakup and problems in relationships. Being spontaneous and funny buy generic levitra http://robertrobb.com/2018/05/page/2/ is so sexy because you not only convey having a sense of well-being.
How urgent is the problem? A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier this year questions the depths of the issue:

“In the 1970s and 1980s, expert commentary often depicted air pollution as an ever-worsening problem that could be solved only by replacing carbon fuels with nonemitting alternatives. Technology falsified that narrative as well. Since 1980, U.S. consumption of coal has increased 31.6 percent; oil, 10.6 percent; and natural gas, 32.3 percent—even as emissions of the six most common air pollutants have decreased by 62 percent, according to EIA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. Even without additional regulation, U.S. air quality would keep improving as newer vehicles and capital stock replace older models and equipment.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes how coal can be made cleaner:

“Industry has found several ways to reduce sulfur, NOx, and other impurities from coal. They have found more effective ways of cleaning coal after it is mined, and coal consumers have shifted toward greater use of low sulfur coal.

Power plants use flue gas desulfurization equipment, also known as scrubbers, to clean sulfur from the smoke before it leaves their smokestacks. In addition, industry and the U.S. government have cooperated to develop technologies that can remove impurities from coal or that can make coal more energy-efficient so less needs to be burned.

Equipment intended mainly to reduce SO2, NOx, and particulate matter can also be used to reduce mercury emissions from some types of coal. Scientists are also working on new ways to reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.

Research is underway to address emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion. Carbon capture separates CO2from emissions sources and recovers it in a concentrated stream. The CO2 can then be sequestered, which puts CO2into storage, possibly underground, where it will remain permanently.

Reuse and recycling can also reduce coal’s environmental impact. Land that was previously used for coal mining can be reclaimed and used for airports, landfills, and golf courses. Waste products captured by scrubbers can be used to produce products like cement and synthetic gypsum for wallboard.”

Tags alternative energy, clean air, coal

NY Analysis

China’s Military Threat

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 13, 2015

For a number of years, China’s military has increased its military spending by higher annual percentages than either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It now must be considered a military and economic superpower with aggressive tendencies that threaten not only its neighbors but the interests of peace throughout the globe.

Beijing’s forces have nearly twice the manpower of the U.S. (2,285,000 vs. 1,429,995). It will have more ships than the U.S. navy by 2020 (351 vs. 250) and more tanks than the U.S. (9,000 vs. 8,725.) The U.S. has a two to one lead in aircraft. However, that lead in quality and quantity may shrink rapidly as budget cuts in the U.S. and continued double digit increases in the PLA budget come to fruition.

According to the U.S-China Security Review Commission’s 2014 report,

“With the exception of 2010, China’s official defense budget has increased in nominal terms by double-digits every year since 1989. China’s actual aggregate defense spending is higher than the officially announced budget due to Beijing’s omission of major defense-related expenditures—such as purchases of advanced weapons, research and development programs, and local government support to the PLA—from its official figures…

“China has made progress in its missile sector and now is able to rapidly develop and produce a diverse array of advanced ballistic and cruise missiles. China maintains the largest and most lethal short-range ballistic missile force in the world; fielded the world’s first antiship ballistic missile in 2010; deployed its military’s first long-range, air-launched land-attack cruise missile in 2012; and will widely deploy its military’s first indigenous advanced, long range submarine-launched antiship missile in the next few years, if it has not already.

“In 2014, China conducted its first test of a new hypersonic missile vehicle, which can conduct kinetic strikes anywhere in the world within minutes to hours, and performed its second flight test of a new road-mobile intercontinental missile that will be able to strike the entire continental United States and could carry up to 10 independently maneuverable warheads.

“In the maritime domain, China in 2014 continued its transformation from a coastal force into a technologically advanced navy capable of projecting power throughout the Asia Pacific. Since the Commission’s 2013 Annual Report, the PLA Navy has expanded its presence in the East and South China Seas and for the first time begun combat patrols in the Indian Ocean. Additionally, China’s first aircraft carrier in January conducted its first long-distance training deployment. The nature of the deployment suggests China is experimenting with multiple types of carrier formations, including those resembling U.S. combined expeditionary groups.

“Regarding China’s nuclear forces, high-confidence assessments of the numbers of Chinese nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads are not possible due to China’s lack of transparency about its nuclear program. The Department of Defense (DoD) has not released detailed information on China’s nuclear program, only noting in 2013 that “China’s nuclear arsenal currently consists of approximately 50‒75 intercontinental ballistic missiles,” and that “the number of Chinese intercontinental missile nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States could expand to well over 100 within the next 15 years.

Exercising even for thirty minutes a day cheap viagra from uk can offer you huge incentives. Propecia (finasteride) The drug finasteride, available in the market in three various dosages 100 mg, 50 mg and 25 mg, of which 100 mg is said to be the main factor of online cialis prescription is Sildenafil Citrate. It’s possible to just guess viagra 25mg icks.org just how much Adam is profiting at this point together with his collection of niche websites. To know more about levitra samples kamagra, its benefits, side effects and long lasting result are two main advantages of using herbal male fertility pills. “DoD has not provided an unclassified estimate of China’s nuclear warhead stockpile since 2006, when the Defense Intelligence Agency said China had more than 100 nuclear warheads. Estimates of China’s nuclear forces and nuclear capabilities by nongovernmental experts and foreign governments tend to be higher. Despite the uncertainty surrounding China’s stockpiles of nuclear missiles and nuclear warheads, it is clear China’s nuclear forces over the next three to five years will expand considerably and become more lethal and survivable with the fielding of additional road-mobile nuclear missiles; as many as five nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, each of which can carry 12 sea-launched intercontinental-range ballistic missiles; and intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles.

“In space, China in 2014 continued to pursue a broad counterspace program to challenge U.S. information superiority in a conflict and disrupt or destroy U.S. satellites if necessary. Beijing also likely calculates its growing space warfare capabilities will enhance its strategic deterrent as well as allow China to coerce the United States and other countries into not interfering with China militarily. Based on the number and diversity of China’s existing and developmental counterspace capabilities, China probably will be able to hold at risk U.S. national security satellites in every orbital regime in the next five to ten years…

“Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, testified to the House Armed Services Committee in January 2014 that concerning “technological superiority, DoD is being challenged in ways that I have not seen for decades, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. … Technological superiority is not assured and we cannot be complacent about our posture.” China’s rise as a major military power challenges decades of air and naval dominance by the United States in a region in which Washington has substantial economic and security interests…

“As a result of China’s comprehensive and rapid military modernization, the regional balance of power between China, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies and associates on the other, is shifting in China’s direction. China’s accelerated military modernization program has been enabled by China’s rapid economic growth; reliable and generous increases to the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) budget; gradual improvements to China’s defense industrial base; and China’s acquisition and assimilation of foreign technologies—especially from Russia, Europe, and the United States—through both purchase and theft.”

Some studies, such as that recently released by the Rand corporation, have noted that “The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Is Becoming More Professional and More Capable.” And its “capabilities aimed at deterring or, if necessary, countering U.S. military intervention in the Asia-Pacific region, including systems designed to hold U.S. military bases, aircraft carriers, space systems, and computer networks at risk have improved markedly.” The Rand study does outline organizational challenges Beijing faces in wielding its vast new military.

Another key study, The Department of Defense’s 2014 Annual Report on China’s Military Power noted China’s military investments provide it with a growing ability to project power at increasingly longer ranges. In 2013, this included at-sea testing of China’s first aircraft carrier and continued development of fifth generation fighter aircraft.

Equally worrisomely in the Defense Department’s report was the description of China’s growing cooperation, evidenced by significant joint training and exercises, between China and Russia.

Politicians interested in continuing to borrow funds to hide excess federal spending, as well as those who seek commercial relations Beijing, continue to downplay the dramatic danger of China’s vast new military strength and its growing relationship with Putin government.

Tags China's military power, Chinese military budget, People's Liberation Army, Sino-Russian military exercises

NY Analysis

The Issues Each Presidential Candidate Must Address

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date April 25, 2015

The presidential campaign season has begun at a time when America faces extraordinary crises at home and abroad. Although it is a consistent cliché that the “next election is the most important in a lifetime,” the reality is that this time, it happens to be true.

Due to the gravity of the economic, diplomatic, national security, societal, constitutional and other challenges facing the United States, it is vital that candidates be judged on their comprehension of the problems affecting the nation, proposed solutions, ability to achieve their goals, and the honesty with which they outline all the above. Personal integrity should be examined. At this crucial juncture, voter decisions based on any other criteria, including party loyalty, special interests, personal appearance, personality, race, ethnicity, gender, or campaign slogans are clearly counterproductive.

There will, of course, be debates in both the primary and general elections. Sadly, these affairs have failed to provide genuine opportunities to rate those seeking the nation’s highest office. Inadequate formats, the lack of a sufficient number of direct questions on the issues, and the toleration of evasive answers has sharply limited their usefulness. Several instances of biased and ill-informed moderators have also resulted in disappointing outcomes.

These are the direct questions each candidate should be able to respond to with thoroughness and accuracy, both in debates and through campaign literature:

THE ECONOMY

The U.S. labor participation rate is the lowest in several decades. Long term unemployment remains extremely high. The few jobs that have been created in the past several years have largely been minimum wage positions without substantial benefits. Inner city unemployment rates for minority youth are at Great Depression levels. What will you do to address this?

For many years, the number of business failures has exceeded the number of start-ups. What will you do to reverse this?

American jobs and American companies continue to flee overseas. What will you do to stop this?

American companies remain at a competitive disadvantage due to international competitors that pay lower corporate tax rates and face a less substantial regulatory regime. What will you do to address this?

American manufacturing has plummeted since the start of the 21^st century. What steps will you take to reinvigorate it?

THE FEDERAL BUDGET

The federal government has taken in record amounts of revenue recently, but continues to run high deficits. What will you do to balance the budget?

The national debt has nearly doubled during the current administration, with nothing substantial to show for all that spending. What will you do differently? What areas will you cut or protect?

What will you do to address the tremendous increase in public assistance programs over the past several years?

What will you do to insure that Social Security remains solvent?

There is widespread dissatisfaction with the Internal Revenue Code. Should the income tax system be changed? If so, in what manner? Are taxes too high?

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES & NATIONAL SECURITY

Since 2009, the Russian government has invaded a neighbor, committed vast resources to a dramatic conventional and nuclear arms buildup, re-established cold war bases, threatened Europe both militarily and economically, sold nuclear technology and conventional weaponry to Iran, militarized the Arctic, resumed nuclear patrols along American coastlines, and violated arms accords. What will your administration do in response?

China continues its own dramatic arms buildup at a rate greater than that of either the USSR or the USA at the height of the cold war. It has threatened and bullied its neighbors, stolen assets from several of them, and committed significant cyberattacks on American and other civilian, military and corporate targets. It has provided inappropriate assistance to Iran. It continues to engage in human rights violations, and its environmental record is troubling. It continues to engage in intellectual property theft on a massive scale. How will you amend Sino-U.S. relations?

Terrorist forces are more powerful and widespread than ever, controlling more territory and financial resources than at any other point in history. ISIS continues to commit atrocities on a massive scale. Al Qaeda is resurgent and expanding its worldwide influence. What can be done to counter this?

North Korea has developed a powerful nuclear weapons capability and Iran is heading in that direction as well. How will you deal with this?

America’s national security is at its weakest point since the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. International adversaries have extensively increased their armed forces, and for the first time in history, the U.S. is in an inferior position in nuclear deterrence. The Army is at its lowest strength since before World War 2, the Navy, since World War 1. The Air Force has reached an historic low point. These armed forces face adversaries who are technologically equal or, in some areas, superior to America, and with greater numbers. The U.S. defense industrial base is weakened, and many essential components are purchased overseas. What will you do to keep America safe?

How will you repair damaged relations with allies such as the United Kingdom, Israel, and Poland?
cheapest cheap viagra Smoking also causes hypertension and peripheral vascular diseases”. Many of the disadvantages of this drug also helps to improve the impotency victim’s sexual strength by supplying their penile tissues due to which they order viagra on line become unable to produce a strong erection that is required for sexual intercourse. * Get the right prescription. The particular simple medicine may well seem diverse due to the fact in the usa, FDA will not give it time and work viagra cialis for sale out for sometime daily. Acute inflammation usually disappears cialis 20 mg within two to three days.
What will you do in response to the growing presence of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and terrorist military interests in Latin America?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Describe your views on the appropriate use of executive authority.

Do you agree with the concept enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that there are “unalienable rights” that the government may not infringe upon? Define your version of those rights.

Regulations enacted not by the legislative process but by bureaucracies play an increasingly large role in the lives of Americans. Do you believe that is appropriate? If not, what will you do to change that?

The 9^th & 10^th Amendments to the Bill of Rights proclaim that rights and powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved for the people or the states. Do you believe the federal government has ignored those provisions?

What are your views on the Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution can be infringed upon by United Nations treaties, agreements, or other actions?

There have been accusations that various portions of the Executive Branch have been used for partisan purposes. Significant examples include the IRS targeting of the Tea Party, and the refusal of the Justice Department to act on complaints of fraudulent or inaccurate voter registration, as while as balloting improprieties. Charges have been made that the State Department covered up evidence of what actually occurred in Benghazi. What are your views on these issues, and what guarantees of governmental transparency are you willing to make?

THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY POLICY, SCIENCE, & EDUCATION

What are your views on the theory of man-made global climate change? Are you willing to listen to both sides of the issue?

Do you believe that the use of coal, nuclear power, or hydrofracking should be curtailed? If so, what energy sources can fully and affordably replace them?

Should federal lands be made available for energy exploitation?

The U.S. has not been capable of putting a human in space since 2011, and NASA’s plans to do so will not remedy this for many years. What will you do to restore America’s manned space capability?

What steps must be taken to insure American preeminence in science?

What are your views on Common Core?

U.S. schools continue to underperform in relation to other industrialized nations, despite spending more per student. What can be done to address this? Is this a federal or state responsibility?

SOCIETAL ISSUES

How will you stem the tide of illegal immigration? How should those illegals, both those here for many years and those recently arrived, be treated?

What can be done to improve race relations within the nation?

Increased prices, lower Social Security cost of living increases, and increased difficulty keeping or finding employment have particularly affected older Americans. What will you do to address this?

What are your views on the Affordable Health Care Act? Should it be retained as is, amended, or repealed? What alternatives or changes would you seek to implement?

Tags 2016 election, Key issues, Presidential race, rating the candidates

NY Analysis

SHOULD BIASED UNIVERSITIES BE DEFUNDED?

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date April 20, 2015

Should institutions of higher learning be defunded until they cease militantly pushing a hard-left bias on their students?

The existence of the leftist bias is statistically well-documented and this overwhelming majority seeks to suppress contrary voices. A number of studies have provided solid statistical evidence of this, many of which were cited in a Discover the Networks article:

A 2003 Center for the Study of Popular Culture study examined the ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans on the faculties of 32 elite colleges and universities nationwide, finding that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was greater than 10-to-1 . “At four schools—Williams, Oberlin, MIT and Haverford—the researchers could not identify a single Republican faculty member.” It was also found that administrators at the “32 schools examined in the CSPC study leaned just as far to the left as did the faculties: At schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, not a single Republican administrator could be found. In the entire Ivy League, the researchers were able to identify only 3 Republican administrators.

The survey’s results have been backed by other investigations. A “2005 national survey directed by Smith College Professor Stanley Rothman and co-authored by Professors Neil Nevitte (University of Toronto) and S. Robert Lichter (George Mason University) found that left-leaning professors outnumbered conservatives by a ratio of 5-to-1 on American campuses…
“Another survey of faculty political views released in 2006 by Professors Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein yielded similar results. Cardiff and Klein looked at the political party registration records for tenure-track faculty at 11 California universities—including large public universities as well as smaller, religiously-affiliated campuses. The ratios they uncovered, particularly in certain departments, were striking. In the field of sociology, for instance, the researchers found a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 44-to-1, whereas in the humanities overall the ratio was 10-to-1.
“These findings were again duplicated in 2007 by Professors Neil Gross of Harvard and Solon Simmons of George Mason University, who surveyed a random sampling of more than 1,400 faculty members teaching at 500+ colleges and universities across the United States. ..Gross and Simmons’ results indicated that 9.4% of respondents considered themselves “extremely liberal” and 34.7% considered themselves “liberal,” as compared with 1.2% who labeled themselves “very conservative” and 8.0% who answered “conservative.” Overall, only 19.7% of respondents identified themselves as any shade of conservative, as compared to 62.2% who identified themselves as any shade of liberal…

So, go levitra prescription online through the information provided below: Erectile dysfunction It is very important to face a proper flow of blood to male organ which results in no stiffness and pressure in the area. Acupuncture treatment takes a holistic approach to health care and is particularly useful http://secretworldchronicle.com/category/podcast/book-three-world-well-lost/ viagra price in providing pain relief, reducing the impact of side effects particularly antidepressants & anti-seizure drugs hormonal imbalances presence of low testosterone menopause stage Nonsexual Diseases Certain disease, which has been affected the libido level in person (sexual wish). This cycle just not halt here, being overweight takes you to viagra no prescription cheap whole another world of diseases: diabetes, irregular cycle, etc. The videos secretworldchronicle.com generic cialis are further segregates into three categories – first one where the hosts do the breakdown of cartilage.
The article notes that “These increasingly lopsided figures suggest that most students at these schools probably graduate without ever taking a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.”

Numerous inflammatory examples have been reported in the general media. A recent Wall Street Journal article noted that “Conservative thought on campuses these days is rare, though for some, it’s still not rare enough.” Among the most salient of the described incidents:

Fox News reports that Charles Angeletti, a professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, has his class recite an anti-American takeoff on the Pledge of Allegiance that denounces the U.S. as a Republican-controlled bastion of injustice.
A Campus Reform article provided several other examples: “Donna Shalala, the president of the University of Miami, attracted criticism in the national press based on her administration’s decision to reject the application of four female students who wanted to organize a conservative group on campus. … the university reversed its decision after public criticism… Shalala, of course, is a prominent Democratic official, having served as Secretary of Health and Human Services for eight years during the Clinton administration. She was recently named the CEO of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation…Condoleezza Rice, who served at the highest levels of government, [was essentially] forced to withdrew as a commencement speaker at Rutgers University after protests. Students and faculty didn’t like the fact that she’d worked in the George W. Bush administration. They were successful in making sure her voice was not heard.”

In contradiction to America’s tradition of religious tolerance, universities have displayed bias against religious Christians and Jews. The Daily Beast recently reported that “From neo-Nazi graffiti at Berkeley to the grilling of a Jewish student at UCLA, anti-Semitism is on the rise at liberal schools thought to be bastions of political correctness.”

As these institutions continue to indoctrinate, rather than instruct, they absorb ever greater amounts of taxpayer, parental, and student loan dollars. A New America Foundation study notes that “The federal government provided $30.2 billion in grant aid to help individuals pay for a higher education in the 2014-15 school year.” In addition, Washington allows a variety of credits, deductions and exemptions for college attendance. And, of course, there are federally-backed student loans, which increasingly are the topic of discussion due to concerns that students may not be able to repay them going forward.

The states are increasing their higher education spending, as well. A 2014 US News report revealed the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association found state funding for higher education increased from $81.1 billion in 2012 to $81.6 billion in 2013. Overall, 30 states increased spending from 2012 to 2013.

All of this funding and loan activity pays for sharply escalating tuition. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that “Between 2001–02 and 2011–12, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose 40 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 28 percent, after adjustment for inflation.”

Does it make sense for taxpayers to continue to provide ever greater support to institutions that indoctrinate, not teach? Indeed, are Americans financing the very forces that are seeking to overturn the principles and practices they believe in?

Thomas Jefferson had a firm belief that an educated public was essential to the success of a free nation. In a 1787 letter to James Madison, he noted:

“Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of liberty.”

Far too many American universities, at ever greater cost, are striving to eliminate the very concepts that gave rise to the founding of the United States. Rather than, as Jefferson hoped, provide a foundation for the preservation of personal freedom, colleges are now becoming a wellspring of collectivist authoritarianism. It’s time to defund them.

Tags college funding, educational bias

NY Analysis

US military lacks resources to fulfill defense strategy

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date April 18, 2015

The United States is developing military policies it doesn’t have the resources to uphold.

In an attempt in push the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter spoke at the John McCain Institute in Tempe, Arizona, on Monday as the first part of a trip that took him to Japan, South Korea and Hawaii.

According to Carter “America is a Pacific power and will remain one,” noting that the United States will continue to engage with nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Carter said his stops in Japan and South Korea highlight the importance of America’s decades-old alliances with both countries. He stressed that “60 percent of the U.S. fleet will be in the Pacific-Indian Ocean area. U.S. Marines already have a rotational presence in Australia, Carter said, and U.S. and Filipino authorities are working on ways to strengthen military-to-military cooperation.”

What Carter didn’t admit was that the fleet he mentioned is a mere shadow of America’s former naval strength. The Navy’s 600-ship strength is down to about 250 vessels, the smallest since World War One. Many of its most experienced and vital personnel have been forced out due to budget cuts. In its currently weakened condition, it faces a revitalized and expanding Russian navy across the world, a Chinese navy that is becoming dominant in the Eastern Pacific, and an Iranian navy that practices assaults on mockups of U.S. aircraft carriers.

So, it is a genre of levitra free and called levitra. The medicine is actually sildenafil citrate acts to protect cGMP enzyme and block PDE-5 enzyme in the body. viagra sale http://www.slovak-republic.org/spa/ This ultimately allows the fluid to drain viagra online cheap and the inflammation to subside. Attempt to make these encounters enjoyable, and discuss your erectile dysfunction with the doctor. tadalafil overnight Even more dovish observers, such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, question America’s ability to defend its Pacific interest going forward:

“…But the situation is changing in the Western Pacific as Beijing is gradually challenging America’s ability to operate with impunity along China’s periphery. This is evolving as China acquires ballistic missiles, submarines, and air defense systems, and as it gains capacity to deploy aircraft offshore. All of this tests America’s superiority to operate around and near Taiwan. The change is raising concerns among defense planners in the United States and China’s neighbors. There is a real concern that it will alter the reality in the Western Pacific and along China’s periphery and brings into question how long the United States can remain the clearly predominant military power in the Western Pacific. For most U.S. policy makers, such predominance is essential to the defense of U.S. and allied security interests in that region. The implication for the balance of power is the key question over the next several decades.”

Last year, former Defense Secretary Hagel emphasized the impact of budget cuts, stressing that the reductions — including shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II, becoming by the end of 2015 smaller than North Koreas’, and eliminating an entire fleet of Air Force fighter planes — were “difficult choices” that will change defense institutions for years to come. The Air Force is now at smaller than at any other point in its history.

Rep. William “Mac” Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, requested a $16 billion increase over the White House’s defense budget, but given the dramatic drop in defense spending (as noted in a prior NY Analysis of Policy & Government report, “the Pentagon’s 10-year budget projections have absorbed more than $750 billion in cuts, or more than three-quarters of the trillion-dollar cuts that would be required if sequestration is allowed to run its course. The fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays.” The 2016 defense budget is $172 billion lower than its 2010 counterpart.

NY Analysis

Obama’s Unjustified Cuban Policy

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date April 13, 2015

Mr. Obama has engaged in yet another radical departure in U.S. foreign policy with his opening of relations with Cuba for the first time since 1961.

Two vital questions remain unanswered.

Why has the White House chosen this peculiar point in time to engage with Havana, and

what benefit does the U.S., other than public relations praise from several Latin America leaders, stand to gain from the move?

The President is, once again, using Executive Authority rather than consultation with Congress in this matter, resulting in both those questions remaining insufficiently answered.

Mr. Obama’s penchant for ignoring long-standing and unresolved issues in dealing with nations at odds with America was again on display as he maintained, in a well-publicized recent quote about his stance on Cuban-U.S. relations, “The United States will not be imprisoned by the past — we’re looking to the future. I’m not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born… The Cold War has been over for a long time.” The Cold War remark is rather strange, in light of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, dramatic arms buildup, threatening actions towards Europe, and nuclear patrols off U.S. coastlines.

There have been debates concerning a softening of relations with Havana for years. However, the Castro leadership’s continued intransigence in refusing to provide basic human rights to its people, support of terrorism, and continuing military threats to other nations including the United States prevented any progress. Those factors have not improved, and, in terms of its willingness to allow Moscow to use Cuba as a military base for actions compromising the national security of the United States, their actions have in fact recently worsened.

Under the terms of the new relationship, Cuba will be removed from the list of states sponsoring terrorism, despite the fact that it continues to do so. Example includes continuing support for Basque terrorists and sheltering Joanne Chesimard and Charles Hill, who murdered U.S. police officers, and Guillermo Morales, an explosives expert/bomb maker for the FALN (Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional), an extremist organization advocating for Puerto Rican independence through acts of violence. The group, active in the 1970s and early 1980s, is credited with committing more than 100 bombings that caused several deaths, multiple injuries, and millions of dollars in damage.

The two nations will exchange embassies, and engage in some prisoner exchanges. Some restrictions on commerce will be eased, but the embargo will not be completely removed unless Congress approves. The move would allow U.S. residents to send funds to family members in Cuba, and ends most travel restrictions. This should substantially assist Havana’s economy. There is no substantial benefit to the U.S. economy, or a resolution of the confiscation of American property by the Castro regime.

There is no indication that Havana will ease its extreme suppression of human rights on the island following the normalization of relations. Indeed, even during the discussions leading to the new relationship, Cuba imprisoned 140 additional people for political reasons. Freedom House noted that “In 2014, the Cuban government increased its systematic use of short-term “preventive” detentions—along with harassment, beatings, and ‘acts of repudiation’—to intimidate the political opposition, isolate dissidents from the rest of the population, and maintain political control of all public spaces. A record number of politically motivated detentions were recorded in 2014, and crackdowns on activists continued. For example, an attempted performance that addressed social and political issues, orchestrated by artist Tania Bruguera, was met with harsh repression in December.” Freedom House also reported that “Cuba is the only country in the Americas that consistently makes Freedom House’s list of the Worst of the Worst: the World’s Most Repressive Societies for widespread abuses of political rights and civil liberties.”

Considering that the United States is receiving no substantive financial incentive from Obama’s initiative, and human rights considerations are essentially ignored, why has the White House chosen to aid the Castro regime at a time when Havana is assisting Moscow’s expanding military presence in Latin America?
It is required that the patients also follow the sale viagra dosage plans to stay safe and avoid the side effects of Oral Steroids. You need a minimum time (months) to resume the erection process after encouraging the blood circulation and curing the muscle tissues of the genital areas. levitra de prescription The power, dose, strength of medicine and valsonindia.com cheapest levitra the cost of which is lower than the other medicine. Both these type of buy female viagra a male perform throughout sexual experience.
Last July, The Guardian reported that “Russia has quietly reached an agreement with Cuba to reopen a Soviet-era spy base on America’s doorstep, …The deal to reopen the signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, south of Havana.”

The move is part of a larger Russian effort to expand militarily throughout Latin America. The authoritative Jamestown Foundation has reported:

“Nobody should think that Moscow’s aggressive campaign to restore its former status as a global great power or its fundamentally anti-American policy is currently confined to Ukraine. Indeed, while the invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea—not to mention the threats to eastern Ukraine—continue, Moscow is also seeking to expand its military, political and economic footprint in Latin America. Russia seeks to establish permanent bases in the Western Hemisphere to challenge the U.S. With Brazil, Moscow is trying to generate interest in joint development of combat aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems. If successful, this would mark a step toward creating a group of industrialized countries that employ Russian designs and design bureaus for creating their own military hardware, thereby making the Russian defense sector more secure, pervasive and particularly significant in high-tech areas. Meanwhile, Moscow will sell entire weapons systems to less-developed countries endowed with cash, as it has done with Venezuela he United States’ policies as well as to try to peel away US allies from Washington’s influence. … But arms sales hardly exhaust Russia’s repertoire here. Perhaps the most significant move was revealed on February 26 by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu when he described a global plan of potential bases for the Russian Navy. These targets for bases also include countries in Asia like the Seychelles Islands and Singapore (RIA Novosti, February 26). In Latin America, Russia is seeking bases in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, all of whom are Moscow’s allies. Yet, significantly, two of these states—Cuba and Venezuela—could face a change of leadership or even regime in the near future. These proposed naval bases represent an effort to undermine the US and its allies in Latin America (ITAR-TASS March 5; lignet.com, March 18). Indeed, the Russian military is also seeking equatorial bases for refueling its Long-Range Aircraft, suggesting combat missions for them in the vicinity of either Latin America or North America (ITAR-TASS, March 5). Nicaraguan media reports, meanwhile, pointed to the expansionist logic behind Russia’s bases and Moscow’s desire to challenge the United States in its “backyard.” These reports also noted that the Barack Obama Administration has done little or nothing to counter the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence into Latin America (La Prensa, March 3, 4).”

Moscow has helped create and foster anti-U.S. activities in Latin America that go far beyond the usual verbal expressions of disdain for the United States.

As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government “With the assistance of China, Russia, and Iran, a number of Latin American and Caribbean nations are developing a new, hostile military structure. The Strategy Center’s study on the Advance of Radical Populist Doctrine in Latin America describes how Venezuela has utilized its vast income from oil sales to develop an anti-U.S. movement in the western hemisphere. Entitled ALBA (also known as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) it was initially formed by the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2004 and includes Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica, Ecuador, Antigua & Barbuda, and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines.

“The organization espouses an overtly anti-capitalist agenda.

“According to a Bolivian diplomatic document reviewed by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, the organization seeks to develop a number of cooperative economic initiatives, and most importantly, a “new military doctrine.” This alliance is clearly anti-U.S….

“Gen. John Kelly, in charge of the U.S. Southern Command which has responsibility for Latin American security matters, is deeply worried that the slashed American defense budget has been deeply detrimental to our interests in Latin America and is ‘significantly degrading our ability to defend the southern approaches to the United States.”

Clearly, America gains very little from normalizing relations with Cuba. The White House has failed to explain its motive for doing so, other than the President’s dislike for continuing policies that predate his administration.

Providing unreciprocated concessions to a regime that continues to violate human rights, supports terrorism, and has recently welcomed military threats against America onto its soil renders both the existence and timing of Mr. Obama’s actions deeply troubling.

Tags Castro, Cuban-American relations, embargo, normalization of Cuban relations, Russia in Latin America

NY Analysis

Washington’s Worst Mistake

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date March 27, 2015

Proposals for Washington’s 2016 budget, like so many before it, allow for the continuation of a failed effort that is so vast it hampers the federal government’s ability to fulfill its traditional responsibilities. it’s clear that the “War on Poverty” hasn’t produced results. So why do the programs and concepts of this failed effort continue?

The federal debt was $18 trillion as of the filing of this New York Analysis report in late March 2015, a figure that grew by $483 billion in 2014. The future looks grim. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) “The deficit in 2025 is projected to be $1.1 trillion, or 4.0 percent of GDP, and cumulative deficits over the 2016–2025 period are projected to total $7.6 trillion. CBO expects that federal debt held by the public will amount to 74 percent of GDP at the end of this fiscal year—more than twice what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than in any year since 1950. By 2025, in CBO’s baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79 percent of GDP.”

The lion’s share of the federal budget goes to War on Poverty-type entitlement programs. According to a Heritage study, “In 2003, the entitlement share of the budget was 44 percent, compared with 49 percent today. Without reform of these massive and growing programs, Washington will have to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling debt onto younger generations and putting the nation on a dangerous economic course.” (By contrast, 2014 spending on defense was 3.5 percent of GDP, or less than half of what it was in 1965, and falling.)

Heritage notes that “In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, ‘This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.’ In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the ‘causes’ rather than the mere ‘consequences’ of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.”

A New American study, discussing the rise in entitlements, emphasized that “Even more troubling is that analysts say the trends look set to accelerate as Washington, D.C., intensifies its failed efforts to supposedly achieve “victory” in the “war” while the Federal Reserve conjures ever greater quantities of currency into existence…Since Obama took office, 13 million more Americans have become dependent on food stamps, with the numbers now hitting a record 47 million — about a third more than when he was sworn in. In 2007, there were 26 million recipients. Spending on the scheme has more than doubled just since 2008. The explosion of the program, along with other welfare schemes, has resulted in countless commentators and critics labeling Obama ‘the Food Stamp President.”

Ironically, the National Tax Limitation Foundation notes that before the War on Poverty began, the U.S. poverty rate had been declining precipitously. “The poverty rate fell from 32% in 1950 to 17.3% in 1965 to 14.7% in 1966.”

For more information, please see related articles like What Cause Prostatitis Cannot Be Cured? 3 Tips Unveil the Reasons: sildenafil generic from canada In physiology, the prostate is a male specific gonadal organ. But, must remember that these medications work in combination with buy viagra prescription sexual stimulation. It has been used india cheap cialis http://downtownsault.org/category/attractions/page/2/ for centuries for aiding reproductive health. In case of any doubts, free tadalafil sample you should talk to the representatives over phone or chat for complete information. A Forbes review, which termed the war on poverty to be a “catastrophic” failure, found that “Between 1967 and 2012, U.S. real GDP (RGDP) per capita (in 4Q2013 dollars) increased by 127.3%, from $23,706 to $52,809. In other words, to stay out of poverty in 1967, the two adults in a typical family of four had to capture 26.9% of their family’s proportionate share of RGDP (i.e., average RGDP per capita, times four). To accomplish the same thing in 2012, they only had to pull in 12.1% of their family’s share of RGDP. And yet, fewer people were able to manage this in 2012 than in 1967.”

The CATO Institute outlined the amounts spent in a single year: “In 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three. Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher. Over the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty. Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent. How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?”

In their book, The Poverty of Nations,” by Dr. Wayne Grudem and economist Barry Asmus explain why they believe government programs have largely failed. They summarized their analysis in a recent WND interview: “The solutions to poverty come when people … are enabled to produce their own prosperity. The question is not equality. The question is, ‘Is there opportunity? Is there freedom in the workplace? Is there economic freedom? Is there governmental freedom from excessive regulations so that people who are at the lower end of the income bracket can progress and hope to progress toward higher income?…What about the things we’re doing in the United States? Aren’t we having more government regulation, higher taxation, disincentives to productivity, disincentives to work? Aren’t we having moral breakdown in the way that people think of honesty and truthfulness, not breaking contracts and obedience to the rule of law?’” he said. “There are many things our country is doing that are actually hindering our economic growth and, of course, that results in a stagnant economy essentially.”

Why do the failed concepts of the War on Poverty continue to exist, and continue to deplete the taxpayer’s pockets? Part of the answer is politics. Progressive candidates, who depend on class warfare for their electoral success, view them as a war of redistributing the “wealth” to those on the lower rungs of the economy. But there is another, heavily vested interest as well. The War on Poverty has created an entire special interest of bureaucratic jobs. As noted in a Philly.com article written decades ago,

“Whatever this approach does for poverty, it’s going to be a boon to poverty workers, the one class that benefits most from anti-poverty programs. They’ll be the ones running the classrooms, job training sessions, work programs, and child-care centers authorized by this bill – all in the name of making the poor independent. Some early studies have shown that any training beyond the most basic seldom gets people off the dole…Back when government actually put millions to work – through the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and a spate of other New Deal programs – job preparation might consist of showing up and being handed a shovel. Yet the country is still rich in libraries built, roads paved, and lands reforested that way.”

It is troubling that the War on Poverty, despite failing to address the problem it was created to resolve, has, due to politics and special interests, grown to the point where it dominates the federal budget.

Tags 2016 federal budget, food stamps, government spending, war on poverty, welfare