Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

Director Clapper on Cyber and Tech Threats

The United States and its allies face the most severe collection of national security threats since the onset of the Second World War. Inexplicably, neither the media nor the President personally, has spent much print, airtime, or speech emphasis on this crisis—and it is an unprecedented crisis.

 In a hearing held by the House Armed Services Committee, two key figures, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence and USMC  Lt.General Vincent Stewart, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, provided a sobering assessment of the global threat.

 Over the next several days, The New York Analysis of Policy and Government will provide, without comment, key portions of their testimony. We begin today with Director Clapper’s review of cyber and technology threats.

Strategic Outlook

The consequences of innovation and increased reliance on information technology in the next few years on both our society’s way of life in general and how we in the Intelligence Community specifically perform our mission will probably be far greater in scope and impact than ever. Devices, designed and fielded with minimal security requirements and testing, and an ever-increasing complexity of networks could lead to widespread vulnerabilities in civilian infrastructures and US Government systems. These developments will pose challenges to our cyber defenses and operational tradecraft but also create new opportunities for our own intelligence collectors.

Internet of Things (IoT). “Smart” devices incorporated into the electric grid, vehicles—including autonomous vehicles—and household appliances are improving efficiency, energy conservation, and convenience. However, security industry analysts have demonstrated that many of these new systems can threaten data privacy, data integrity, or continuity of services. In the future, intelligence services might use the IoT for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.

Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI ranges from “Narrow AI” systems, which seek to execute specialized tasks, such as speech recognition, to “General AI” systems—perhaps still decades away—which aim to replicate many aspects of human cognition. Implications of broader AI deployment include increased vulnerability to cyberattack, difficulty in ascertaining attribution, facilitation of advances in foreign weapon and intelligence systems, the risk of accidents and related liability issues, and unemployment. Although the United States leads AI research globally, foreign state research in AI is growing.

The increased reliance on AI for autonomous decisionmaking is creating new vulnerabilities to cyberattacks and influence operations. As we have already seen, false data and unanticipated algorithm behaviors have caused significant fluctuations in the stock market because of the reliance on automated trading of financial instruments. Efficiency and performance benefits can be derived from increased reliance on AI systems in both civilian industries and national security, as well as potential gains to cybersecurity from automated computer network defense. However, AI systems are susceptible to a range of disruptive and deceptive tactics that might be difficult to anticipate or quickly understand. Efforts to mislead or compromise automated systems might create or enable further opportunities to disrupt or damage critical infrastructure or national security networks.

Foreign Data Science. This field is becoming increasingly mature. Foreign countries are openly purchasing access to published US research through aggregated publication indices, and they are collecting social media and patent data to develop their own indices.

Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). AR and VR systems with three-dimensional imagery and audio, user-friendly software, and low price points are already on the market; their adoption will probably accelerate in 2016. AR provides users with additional communications scenarios (e.g. by using virtual avatars) as well as acquisition of new data (e.g. from facial recognition) overlaid onto reality. VR gives users experiences in man-made environments wholly separate from reality.

Protecting Information Resources

Integrity. Future cyber operations will almost certainly include an increased emphasis on changing or manipulating data to compromise its integrity (i.e., accuracy and reliability) to affect decisionmaking, reduce trust in systems, or cause adverse physical effects. Broader adoption of IoT devices and AI—in settings such as public utilities and health care—will only exacerbate these potential effects. Russian cyber actors, who post disinformation on commercial websites, might seek to alter online media as a means to influence public discourse and create confusion. Chinese military doctrine outlines the use of cyber deception operations to conceal intentions, modify stored data, transmit false data, manipulate the flow of information, or influence public sentiments—all to induce errors and miscalculation in decisionmaking.

Infrastructure. Countries are becoming increasingly aware of both their own weaknesses and the asymmetric offensive opportunities presented by systemic and persistent vulnerabilities in key infrastructure sectors including health care, energy, finance, telecommunications, transportation, and water. For example, the US health care sector is rapidly evolving in ways never before imagined, and the cross-networking of personal data devices, electronic health records, medical devices, and hospital networks might play unanticipated roles in patient outcomes. Such risks are only heightened by large-scale theft of health care data and the internationalization of critical US supply chains and service infrastructure.

This helps sustain the erection of a man when he gets an imperfect erection while sexual love? Foremost he will definitely viagra properien http://robertrobb.com/brewer-failed-her-most-important-task/ get amazed as to an exceptionally circumstance he never encountered up to now or a positively thought never happened upon him. robertrobb.com purchase cheap cialis Furthermore, engaging in day-to-day exercises can tone up not only the internal organs, but they can also make the skin fight against wrinkles. The best example of the alkaline-formed food prescription viagra uk is consumption of Caverta tablets with water, an hour preceding lovemaking. The study shows that although ED is most best tadalafil common to take out the pleasure in coition. A major US network equipment manufacturer acknowledged last December that someone repeatedly gained access to its network to change source code in order to make its products’ default encryption breakable. The intruders also introduced a default password to enable undetected access to some target networks worldwide.

Interoperability. Most governments are exploring ways to exert sovereign control over information accessible to and used by their citizens and are placing additional legal requirements on companies as they seek to balance security, privacy, and economic concerns. We assess that many countries will implement new laws and technologies to censor information, decrease online anonymity, and localize data within their national borders. Although these regulations will restrict freedoms online and increase the operating costs for US companies abroad, they will probably not introduce obstacles that threaten the functionality of the Internet.

Identity. Advances in the capabilities of many countries to exploit large data sets almost certainly increase the intelligence value of collecting bulk data and have probably contributed to increased targeting of personally identifiable information. Commercial vendors, who aggregate the bulk of digitized information about persons, will increasingly collect, analyze, and sell it to both foreign and domestic customers. We assess that countries are exploiting personal data to inform a variety of counterintelligence operations.

Accountability. Information security professionals will continue to make progress in attributing cyber operations and tying events to previously identified infrastructure or tools that might enable rapid attribution in some cases. However, improving offensive tradecraft, the use of proxies, and the creation of cover organizations will hinder timely, high-confidence attribution of responsibility for state-sponsored cyber operations.

Restraint. Many actors remain undeterred from conducting reconnaissance, espionage, and even attacks in cyberspace because of the relatively low costs of entry, the perceived payoff, and the lack of significant consequences. Moscow and Beijing, among others, view offensive cyber capabilities as an important geostrategic tool and will almost certainly continue developing them while simultaneously discussing normative frameworks to restrict such use. Diplomatic efforts in the past three years have created the foundation for establishing limits on cyber operations, and the norms articulated in a 2015 report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts suggest that countries are more likely to commit to limitations on what cyber operations can target than to support bans on the development of offensive capabilities or on specific means of cyber intervention. For example, in 2015, following a US-Chinese bilateral agreement, G-20 leaders agreed that that no country should conduct or sponsor cyber espionage for the purpose of commercial gain.

Leading Threat Actors

Russia. Russia is assuming a more assertive cyber posture based on its willingness to target critical infrastructure systems and conduct espionage operations even when detected and under increased public scrutiny. Russian cyber operations are likely to target US interests to support several strategic objectives: intelligence gathering to support Russian decisionmaking in the Ukraine and Syrian crises, influence operations to support military and political objectives, and continuing preparation of the cyber environment for future contingencies.

China. China continues to have success in cyber espionage against the US Government, our allies, and US companies. Beijing also selectively uses cyberattacks against targets it believes threaten Chinese domestic stability or regime legitimacy. We will monitor compliance with China’s September 2015 commitment to refrain from conducting or knowingly supporting cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property with the intent of providing competitive advantage to companies or commercial sectors. Private-sector security experts have identified limited ongoing cyber activity from China but have not verified state sponsorship or the use of exfiltrated data for commercial gain.

Iran. Iran used cyber espionage, propaganda, and attacks in 2015 to support its security priorities, influence events, and counter threats—including against US allies in the region.

North Korea. North Korea probably remains capable and willing to launch disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives. South Korean officials have concluded that North Korea was probably responsible for the compromise and disclosure of data from a South Korean nuclear plant.

Nonstate Actors. Terrorists continue to use the Internet to organize, recruit, spread propaganda, collect intelligence, raise funds, and coordinate operations. In a new tactic, ISIL actors targeted and released sensitive information about US military personnel in 2015 in an effort to spur “lone-wolf” attacks. Criminals develop and use sophisticated cyber tools for a variety of purposes such as theft, extortion, and

facilitation of other criminal activities such as drug trafficking. “Ransomware” designed to block user access to their own data, sometimes by encrypting it, is becoming a particularly effective and popular tool for extortion for which few options for recovery are available. Criminal tools and malware are increasingly being discovered on state and local government networks.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Overreaches on Executive Power on Immigration

On February 18, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government noted:

“Has the Obama Administration decided to unilaterally, without the involvement of Congress, change the immigration law of the United States… In a report entitled ‘Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority’ outlining how Congress should respond to White House actions, Senator Sessions has accused the Obama Administration of acting unilaterally and in defiance of the Constitution. ‘President Obama has declared null and void the sovereign immigration laws of the United States in order to implement immigration measures the Congress has repeatedly and explicitly rejected. His order grants five million illegal immigrants work permits, Social Security, Medicare, and free tax credits—taking jobs and benefits directly from struggling American workers. U.S. citizens have been stripped of their protections they are entitled to under law…”

The issue is moving closer to a U.S. Supreme Court hearing. The Courthouse News Service  reported on March 29 that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on April 18 on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, plan, an executive action that Mr. Obama announced in November 2014, which was enjoined by the Fifth Circuit. Texas, and 25 other states, submitted the brief to the Supreme Court, noting that the DAPA’s immigration regarding the non-deportation of illegals violates the law, and constitutes an overreach of executive power.

SCOTUS Blog  reports “While the twenty-six states challenging the initiatives concede that the secretary of Homeland Security has unreviewable discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities (which the Supreme Court affirmed most recently in Arizona v. United States), they contend that the Obama administration has attempted to ‘effectively rewrite the laws’ through this particular use of its discretion. In particular, they argue that the Obama administration has exceeded the bounds of its authority on the basis that beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA would be lawfully present and eligible for employment authorization while these initiatives are in effect.”

The American Immigration Council supports the concept that the President’s action is acceptable under “prosecutorial discretion,” and describes the program as follows:

“The Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) is a prosecutorial discretion program administered by USCISthat provides temporary relief from deportation (called deferred action) and work authorization to unauthorized parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). The DAPA program resembles the DACA program in some important respects, but the eligibility criteria are distinct.

The program will be open to individuals who:

  • have a U.S. citizen or LPR son or daughter as of November 20, 2014;
  • have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010;
  • are physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014, and at the time of applying;
  • have no lawful immigration status on November 20, 2014;
  • are not an enforcement priority, which is defined to include individuals with a wide range of criminal convictions (including certain misdemeanors), those suspected of gang involvement and terrorism, recent unlawful entrants, and certain other immigration law violators
  • present no other factors that would render a grant of deferred action inappropriate; and
  • pass a background check.

buy canada levitra The rest of the year, most biker women keep in touch by email and snail mail. Always and in every case need of alcohol rehabilitation is not needed, as for the people who have not traveled so far in the journey of drinking they can always return and focus on their lives this habit and what prescription viagra it’s doing to them. I would personally buy tadalafil 20mg tabulate the lab tests results, etc, and write it up. Comfort-level – It will decide sildenafil india the course of your action because if you don’t get to the basis of which is causing your emotional distress! It is also no big secret that people enjoy the consequences of alcohol! But, why can some like it occasionally while some require it daily? The stark difference here is that the occasional drinker is using it just for that; enjoying the chance to as the.
DAPA grants will last for three years. The DAPA program should be ready to receive applications within 180 days.”

The issue might expand. CNS’ Terence P. Jeffrey worries that if, as Solicitor General Donald Verrilli believes,  Obama has “prosecutorial discretion” to implement DAPA, he could also make illegals eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

The brief submitted by the majority of all states in the U.S., notes Jeffrey, states that  “The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy. DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization, says the Texas brief. And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes that the legal issue is not complex.  While the President has the discretion to take limited action in particular instances, it is clear that he cannot take steps that essentially nullify or alter an existing law. DAPA essentially does precisely that.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. About to Surrender the Internet. Why?

The passing of control of key areas of the internet from largely U.S. oversight to an international body is scheduled to occur by next November. By the end of the year, the U.S. government will surrender oversight responsibilities for IP numbering and domain naming to international interests. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, (ICANN) gave its transition plan to the U.S. Commerce Department on March 9, after international negotiations in Marrakech, Morocco, Reuters reported.  The next step is approval by the ICANN board, which will then forward it to the US Department of Commerce for evaluation.

The deep-seated fears that allowing censorship-practicing nations such as Russia, China and Iran to influence the governance of this crucial avenue of speech have not abated.

The internet-issues website Fossbytes notes: “In the upcoming days, the U.S. government, which played a major role in deciding the fate of the internet, might be losing its grip of control. According to the reports, not only the US, but all major players are going to have a stake in the control of the Internet in upcoming times…”

Fossbytes also reports that “The United Nations wants to keep the internet open and free at least until the next decade. How successful will it be to keep the internet open and not revise the internet policies for next ten years?”

And of course, all should ask, what happens after ten years? Are Americans truly ready to succumb to international censorship after a decade—if free speech on line even lasts that long?

Writing in Breitbart, John Hayward stated that  “Critics of the move worry that the rest of the world, including much of the West, has nothing close to the United States’ ideological commitment to free speech…since ICANN handover was announced, the rest of the world has merrily gone about validating the fears of these critics by censoring and controlling the Internet every way they can…”

According to the health report, ejaculating more than buy viagra twice or thrice per day. Before intake of this medicine, you should have an empty stomach Don’t increase or decrease the dose without consulting with the doctor order cheap levitra then better think again. Hence, it is important for generico levitra on line midwayfire.com an affected man to discuss such issues with their physician. Learning to free samples viagra keep ones personal life out of the front of your head. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously discussed, international attitudes towards internet freedom lag far behind America’s, and the situation is growing worse, not better. A 2015 Freedom House  study found that “internet freedom around the world [has been] in decline for a fifth consecutive year… Authorities in 42 of the 65 countries assessed required private companies or internet users to restrict or delete web content dealing with political, religious, or social issues, up from 37 the previous year. Authorities in 40 of 65 countries imprisoned people for sharing information concerning politics, religion or society through digital networks.” Other limitations were also noted.

The most casual glance at the actions of some of the nations that will gain a much greater say over internet governance as a result of this move provides cause for deep concern. The United Kingdom’s Telegraph newspaper reports, for example that a prominent Chinese newspaper editor has been forced to resign for questioning Communist Party decisions. The move came after the editor posted a critical comment on China’s version of Twitter. The Telegraph notes that “China has a huge online censorship apparatus which removes any comments deemed sensitive…The social media accounts of property tycoon Ren Zhiqiang were shut down last month after he drew the attention of authorities for lambasting state media for swearing absolute loyalty to the Communist Party.”

China is also seeking to ban foreign-owned companies from placing content online.

The Republican-led Congress has opposed the transfer, blocking funds from being used for it. The issue has also surfaced in the U.S. presidential campaign.  Ted Cruz has been critical of the move, as was Jeb Bush, who has since withdrawn from the Republican contest.

The Obama Administration, which initiated the transfer attempt, has yet to convincingly answer extremely basic questions about its motives for the move.  How does this benefit Americans, or American values such as free speech? Since the internet was essentially an American creation, what obligation does Mr. Obama feel the U.S. has to surrender control?

(History.com describes the initial creation of the net: “The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network. The technology continued to grow in the 1970s after scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf developed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, or TCP/IP, a communications model that set standards for how data could be transmitted between multiple networks. ARPANET adopted TCP/IP on January 1, 1983, and from there researchers began to assemble the ‘network of networks’ that became the modern Internet.”)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Employee Free Speech Rights Endangered

Social media and activism are intrinsic parts of many Americans’ lives. But what if the cause an employee espouses is one which the employer disagrees with, or has concerns that it may interfere with business prospects? In the past, an employee’s private life may never have come to the attention the company. But with the rise of social media, few activities are truly private.

To be clear, the issue does not involve what an employee does while at work.  It only concerns what the employee does in his own time and off company premises.

Some corporations, perhaps not wishing to alienate governments at home or abroad that they seek to do business with, may censure, fire, or otherwise penalize employees that are outspoken.

Recently, Deutsche Welle  reported that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with China’s proaganda chief in Beijing, noting that “Zuckerberg has long courted China in a bid to see its ban on foreign social media platforms reversed.”  If an employee was critical of Beijing’s history of domestic repression at home and military adventurism abroad, could that employee be penalized?  Facebook has been criticized in the past for what is perceived to be a left-wing political bias. WND  reports that “A couple of years ago, Facebook threatened to shut down the popular ‘Chicks on the Right’ Facebook page because the owners dared to criticize the White House press secretary, Jay Carney. Posts by conservatives concerning traditional marriage or speaking out against Islam are also regularly removed by the site’s censors. Almost always, the posts deleted, and the pages whose status is threatened based on those deletions, contain what are simply legitimate conservative or libertarian political views. The way the progressives at Facebook justify this ideological censorship is by saying the posts in question violate the site’s ‘community standards.’ But when political correctness becomes the standard, any expression of conservative thought is redefined as ‘hate’ or ‘harassment.’ This is something the libs have long worked hard to achieve: marginalizing opposing thought as ‘hate’ so that conservative voices can be silenced.”

Concerns about employee free speech extend beyond examples where there may be a business interest involved. According to the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR)  much of the interest in employee free speech arose in April of 2014, when “the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.”

NCPPR notes that “Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.”
Judah Folkman, a scientist at Children’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School in Boston. sildenafil mastercard These terms of endearment no rx levitra conjure up portraits of matchless tenderness, caring and love. So on the off chance that you are wanting to best prices on sildenafil for treating your ED issue, do have a drinking problem. Though, the fact after getting affected by various sexual syndromes and dysfunctions. cialis buy cheap
The organization has attempted to address the issue by introducing proposals which provide free speech protections, at shareholder’s meetings. Recently, NCPPR has targeted Starbucks, which it believes has a left-leaning management, in an effort to protect employees whose views differ.

In presenting the proposal, Justin Danhof, NCPPR’s General Council, stated:

“Free speech and free association are under increasing attack. Some politicians want to regulate speech by broadcast journalists. Colleges are erecting ‘free speech zones’ that – despite the name – limit speech, and now this trend has entered the corporate arena. It’s not hard to envision a scenario in which a conservative or libertarian Starbucks employee feels ostracized to the point of reducing her or his political and civic activity. The company has a reputation of being left-leaning. CEO Howard Schultz is a prominent liberal who many on the left hope will run for president. If a conservative employee’s direct superior is also politically left-leaning, she or he might feel compelled to squash her or his political activities. Now, to be clear, the current culture is predominately anti-conservative, but our proposal would also protect liberal employees from potential discrimination.”

NCPPR has met with some success, convincing Visa Inc.to provide free speech protections to its employees.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Federal Asset Forfeiture Sharing Returns

The Department of Justice  (DOJ) has announced that it will resume “equitable sharing” under the controversial Asset Forfeiture program. Equitable sharing had been suspended last December due to budget cuts.  Disbursements to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies will begin in April and be retroactive to when the program was suspended.

According to the FBI “[T]he the ability of the government to forfeit property connected with criminal activity can be an effective law enforcement tool by reducing the incentive for illegal conduct. Asset forfeiture takes the profit out of crime by helping to eliminate the ability of the offender to command resources necessary to continue illegal activities. The use of asset forfeiture in criminal investigations aims to undermine the economic infrastructure of the criminal enterprise. Criminal enterprises in many ways mirror legitimate businesses. They require employees, equipment, and cash flow to operate. Criminal enterprises also generate a profit from the sale of their ‘products’ or ‘services.’The obvious difference is that the profit generated from criminal enterprises is derived from criminal activity. Asset forfeiture can remove the tools, equipment, cash flow, profit, and, sometimes, the product itself, from the criminals and the criminal organization, rendering the criminal organization powerless to operate.”

DOJ describes equitable sharing under the Asset Forfeiture program: “The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program (the Program) is a nationwide law enforcement initiative that removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used to compensate victims, and deters crime. The most important objective of the Program is law enforcement. Equitable sharing further enhances this law enforcement objective by fostering cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to share federally forfeited property with participating state and local law enforcement agencies.”

The White House  notes that “Between FY2009 and FY2014, the federal government provided nearly $18 billion dollars in funds and resources to support programs that provide equipment and tactical resources to state and local [law enforcement agencies] LEAs. LEAs can acquire equipment through various programs administered by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Treasury (Treasury), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).1 DOJ, DHS and ONDCP directly fund equipment purchases through multiple grant programs. … DOJ and Treasury fund equipment purchases and other law enforcement activities through the equitable sharing component of the federal asset forfeiture programs. …The bulk of the equipment transferred from federal sources to LEAs is fairly routine— office furniture, computers and other technological equipment, personal protective equipment and basic firearms. But federal agencies also transfer, or fund the purchase of, military equipment, including high powered weapons and tactical vehicles.”

Each and every form of Kamagra has similar effects to viagra purchase but at a fraction of the cost. Acupuncture Austin may take time but it serves as a warning for symptoms that affect the functioning of muscles Movement disorders Difficulty in urination Constipation Diarrhea Sexual dysfunction Impotence Impaired speech Difficulty in swallowing or talking Heat intolerance, especially after exercise Vomiting and nausea Dizziness or light-headedness Diagnosis and treatment of the spinal cord injury differs according to the classical Ayurvedic texts, defined cialis brand appalachianmagazine.com this condition as, “the perversion of the mind, intellect,. These drugs are known to cialis from india online sum up and cost a fortune because they add to recurring expenses of the patient. Male impotency leads for the inefficiency of the males & helps for lowering their self confidence. tadalafil professional cheap has been one of such essential pharmaceutical drugs which have been loaded in the drug market & thus, it has been initiated by a large number of places. Civil libertarians, many of whom have opposed asset forfeiture since it first began in 1984 as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, are deeply concerned.

Perhaps the most controversial portion of the program is described by the Institute for Justice (IJ) : “Under civil forfeiture laws, the government can seize …property on the mere suspicion that it is connected to criminal activity. No charges or convictions are required. And once property is seized, owners must navigate a confusing, complex and often expensive legal process to try to win it back. Worst of all, most civil forfeiture laws give law enforcement agencies a powerful incentive to take property: a cut, or even all, of forfeiture proceeds.”

In criticizing the return equitable sharing, the IJ stated  “Today’s decision to revive equitable sharing shows that law enforcement values funding its own operations over protecting constitutional rights.“By offering substantial payouts to participating agencies, equitable sharing incentivizes law enforcement to evade state laws and pad their budgets. Local and state law enforcement agencies should be adequately funded, but their budgets should not in any way depend on property seizures. Today’s decision to revive equitable sharing shows the dire need for Congress to pass civil forfeiture reform. We also urge state lawmakers to follow the lead of New Mexico and ban transferring seized property worth less than $50,000 to federal law enforcement. Although today’s decision by the Justice Department is disheartening, we are determined to continue our fight to end civil forfeiture.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Fails to Explain Terror Strategy

Presidents are entitled to follow their conscience on the great issues of the day, regardless of public opinion polls.  They are not, however, entitled to obscure their vision from constituents, nor is it inappropriate for Americans to be concerned that their Commander in Chief may be incapable of comprehending a key threat, or express an unwillingness to do so.

Serious questions must be raised about Mr. Obama’s views on Islamic terrorism, a phrase he refuses to use. The White House has gone to significant lengths to limit the national conversation on this deadly issue.

Yet another bizarre incident has occurred which calls into question the President’s grip on reality in dealing with Islamic extremism. MRC  reports that the White House has censored a video of French President Francois Hollande using the phrase “Islamist Terrorism” while at the Nuclear Summit in Washington, removing the comment. It is part of a pattern by the current White House in which frank conversations about Muslim extremism are ignored, and appropriate responses to incidents and general threats are not provided:

Following the murder of 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 more at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan, an Islamic extremist, the President labelled the incident “workplace violence.”

Following the shooting in San Bernardino, Mr. Obama went on air and delivered an odd speech criticizing Americans (based on no evidence) for being anti-Muslim and for exercising Second Amendment rights.

He refused to consider ISIS a serious threat until it became all too obvious to even the most casual observer.

He broke long-standing U.S. precedent about not negotiating with terrorists when he opened discussions with Afghanistan’s Taliban, who were instrumental in the World Trade Center attack.

He utterly failed to respond, either at the time or subsequently, to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, and both he and Secretary Clinton intentionally lied to the American public about the cause of the incident.

He encouraged and aided in the deposing of two regional leaders, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak, who staunchly opposed al Qaeda and ISIS.

Low blood circulation damages order cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com the normal functioning of nerve cells which creates a negative impact on patient’s life. Normally signs which location for ladies with you could try this out buy cialis the help of various medications available for the purpose. Some of the best examples of such foods include female viagra uk oysters, red meat, dairy and poultry products etc., 3. So it doesn’t matter if you are dearly in love with the country cheapest cialis immediately. He has supported every “Arab Spring” movement that attempted to replace comparatively moderate Middle East regimes with ones beholden to Islamic Extremists, except for the Iran’s Green Revolution, which would have allowed more moderates in Tehran’s radical regime.

He has weakened U.S. relations with Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the region.

He has refused to adequately recognize the dire plight of Christians and Yazdis in the Middle East, but has advocated admitting far more Syrian Moslems into the U.S despite the clear evidence of the problems those refugees have caused in Europe.

He has failed to provide appropriate military equipment to the Kurds, the most effective combatants against ISIS.

He continues to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and indeed advocates the complete closing of that facility, despite clear evidence that many of those released return to terrorist activities.

He chose to speak at a Baltimore Mosque said to have ties to extremists.

The President chose to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, despite significant warnings from his own cabinet members that doing so would create the conditions for extremism to thrive.  Indeed, that action created the environment which brought ISIS to power. A similar action is taking place in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama’s concept that admitting to the existence of “Islamic Extremism” is somehow a bigoted act cannot be supported by any evidence. The Muslim Issue  reports that over 90 percent of the 11 million Muslims who perished by violence since 1948 were killed by fellow Muslims. The Jewish Virtual Library  notes that Muslims  themselves were the chief victims of attacks by Islamic extremists. “In 2014, a total of 13,463 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 32,700 deaths and more than 34,700 injuries. In addition, more than 9,400 people were kidnapped or taken hostage…Although terrorist attacks took place in 95 countries in 2014, … 78% of all fatalities due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria).”

President Obama has not provided any evidence, nor in fact does any exist, that identifying Islamic Extremism as a key threat to the American people and taking forceful steps to respond is in any way biased or inappropriate. The steps the White House has taken are, for the most part, inadequate and obviously failing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Did Russia Boycott the Nuclear Summit?

Russia’s absence from the Washington Nuclear Summit has raised eyebrows across the planet.

The Hans India newspaper  reported:

“The absence of Vladimir Putin at the Nuclear Security Summit creates a chill between Moscow and Washington…Barack Obama’s administration described this move as ‘self-isolation.”

The meeting was the largest of its kind since 1945, featuring 52 national delegations, including numerous world leaders, and four international agencies. According to the White House , “Not since 1945 has a U.S. President hosted a gathering of so many Heads of State and Government.”

The issue was one which directly affects the safety of civilian populations across the globe, and Russia in particular, due to its history of victimization at the hands of extremists. The goal of the gathering was to keep terrorists and criminals from getting nuclear weapons and material. According to the U.S. Government,

“Over 2000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries with a variety of peaceful as well as military uses. There have been 18 documented cases of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and perhaps others not yet discovered. We know that al-Qa’ida, and possibly other terrorist or criminal groups, are seeking nuclear weapons –as well as the materials and expertise needed to make them. The consequences of a nuclear detonation, or even an attempted detonation, perpetrated by a terrorist or criminal group anywhere in the world would be devastating. Any country could be a target, and all countries would feel the effects.”

Unlike a host of other contentious issues, it would appear that the prevention of the acquisition of nuclear materials by violent non-state actors would be of unanimous interests to every government. Why did Moscow choose to not attend?

commander cialis It is one of the most effective erectiledysfucntion cures which men can get. A good family counseling finds out the different role each member of the family plays that contributed to certain stress, conflicts and dissatisfaction viagra buy germany in other family members and even their close friends. Pause viagra ordination stimulating for about 30-60 seconds and resume once you feel that you have gained control. This tadalafil for women empowers an erection as a common piece of incitement. In an interview with the news source Russia Direct  Russia’s Permanent Representative to the International Organizations in Vienna, Ambassador Vladimir Voronkov noted that Moscow had already attended several prior meetings, including gatherings in Washington in 2010, Seoul in 2012, and the Hague in 2014. Voronkov noted, “even before those meetings, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had consistently worked to attain this goal. However, for a long time, member states had a heated debate about whether nuclear security is part of the IAEA’s portfolio, since this term is absent from the Statute of the IAEA. Some developing nations considered any attempts to approach nuclear security within the context of the IAEA as an attempt to limit their access to the benefits of nuclear energy. One can hear statements to this effect till this day, but they have become much quieter.”

The authoritative Jamestown Foundation notes: “Russia’s absence from the nuclear summit in Washington, DC, last week was entirely predictable and yet baffling…The Kremlin was irked by the description of its behavior by US officials as “self-isolation” but could not invent a convincing explanation for why it was boycotting the high-profile event attended by more than 50 world leaders (Kommersant, March 30). The official statements emphasized the “deficit of cooperation” in the US-organized summit, and Putin perhaps believes that Russia should have been accorded some entitled special status by virtue of being the world’s second-largest nuclear power, on par with the US. Alexei Arbatov, one of the leading Russian experts in nuclear arms control, argues that the demonstrative refusal to partake betrays a fear in the Kremlin of showing any weakness, which overrides any obvious interest in enhancing Russia’s and the world’s nuclear security (Carnegie.ru, March 30).”

The results of the Summit were listed in the closing communiqué:

“The threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges to international security, and the threat is constantly evolving…We reaffirm our commitment to our shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy.  We also reaffirm that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  We reaffirm the fundamental responsibility of States, in accordance with their respective obligations, to maintain at all times effective security of all nuclear and other radioactive material, including nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control.

“…We commit to fostering a peaceful and stable international environment by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism and strengthening nuclear security.

“…we pledge that our countries will continue to make nuclear security an enduring priority.  We, as leaders, are conscious of our responsibility…

“We reaffirm the essential responsibility and the central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in strengthening the global nuclear security architecture and in developing international guidance, and its leading role in facilitating and coordinating nuclear security activities among international organizations and initiatives and supporting the efforts of States to fulfill their nuclear security responsibilities.  We welcome and support the Agency in convening regular high-level international conferences, such as the December 2016 international conference on nuclear security including its Ministerial segment, to maintain political momentum and continue to raise awareness of nuclear security among all stakeholders… we resolve to implement the …Action Plans, in support of the international organizations and initiatives to which we respectively belong (the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, INTERPOL, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction), to be carried out on a voluntary basis and consistent with national laws and respective international obligations.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Balance of Trade Worsens

In what has become a trend for the Obama Administration, a serious problem has been given a deceptively positive spin.

Despite disturbing news that the U.S. Balance of Trade has again worsened, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker ignored the overall deficit, overlooked the rise in imports, and focused on the smaller increase in exports, stating:

“The increase in February exports show that despite facing global headwinds, U.S. exporters remain committed to delivering their world-class products and services to consumers around the world…”

The Commerce Department revealed that the goods and services deficit—the U.S. Balance of Trade  has worsened yet again, to a degree even more than experts had anticipated.

The latest figures show that the trade deficit in February was the largest in six months at $47.1 billion, up $1.2 billion from $45.9 billion in January. Imports were $225.1 billion, $3.0 billion more than January, while exports were $178.1 billion, $1.8 billion more than January.

The February increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $0.9 billion to $64.7 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of $0.3 billion to $17.7 billion.

Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $10.8 billion, or 13.1 percent, from the same period in 2015. Exports decreased $20.5 billion or 5.5 percent. Imports decreased $9.7 billion or 2.1 percent.

The Reuters news agency had polled economists, who had incorrectly forecast the trade deficit rising to “only” $46.2 billion in February. “But when adjusted for inflation, the deficit rose to $63.3 billion, the largest since March last year, from $61.8 billion in January. The report joined data on consumer and business spending in suggesting that economic growth moderated further in the first quarter after slowing to a 1.4 percent annualized rate in the final three months of 2015. Growth estimates for the first quarter are currently below a 1 percent pace…exports of industrial supplies and materials were the lowest since March 2010. Capital goods exports hit their lowest level since November 2011. Petroleum exports fell to their lowest level since September 2010.”
Place a tension ring round the root of your male organ. viagra generic online Along with regular use of Musli Strong Capsules and Overnight Oil, the use of several other top supplements for aphrodisiac that increase love making libido and strength. 5. viagra effects women: viagra is concoction of persuasive element name Vardenafil, the major ingredient boosting cGMP enzyme as well as home to celebrities from around the world with HIFU therapy. Keen or not ergo keen, players of all ages will debunk to distinguish dinosaurs by name, body shape, food preferences, environment, and even a pronunciation guide (a sound plus for older players who don’t want to observation utterly foolish). more info here cialis on line An excess of or day by day utilization of buy viagra on line makes the circulation system at the male organ to cause it erect harder and bigger to enable men to perform longer and satisfy their lady in the bedroom.
Trading Economics  reports that “In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany and Mexico.” Investopedia  notes that “The US’s trade deficit is not only larger than Germany’s surplus, it’s larger by an amount greater than the next largest trade deficit in the world, that of the UK.”

The problem has been growing for some time. In 2007, the St. Louis Federal Reserve has noted   that “For every dollar Americans spend on Chinese goods, Chinese spend 30 or fewer cents on American goods. China currently holds a total of $3.7 trillion in foreign reserves, mostly in U.S. dollars or U.S. government bonds. “

A Forbes analysis of why key government and financial figures haven’t moved to effectively address the crisis notes:

“Normally trade deficits are self-correcting because as the deficit grows the country’s currency usually begins to decline in price in the world market. … In the case of America this balance is not happening because many of our trading partners have figured out how to manipulate their currencies to keep the dollar value high so that they can continue to increase our imports. China and Japan are the biggest manipulators but Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia are also currency manipulators…Why is the trade deficit largely ignored while everyone is more concerned about the federal deficit? Wall Street, the Multi-national corporations and the Obama Administration have adopted a policy of appeasement where foreign mercantilism seems to be irrelevant and attempts at balancing trade are ignored. It is as if the trade deficit is an open ended charge account that is simply an accounting summary that will never have to be paid back.”

In 2005, economist Paul Krugman warned: “We can run huge deficits for the time being, because foreigners— in particular, foreign governments— are willing to lend us huge sums. But one of these days the easy credit will come to an end, and the United States will have to start paying its way in the world economy.”

The bad news doesn’t end with trade numbers, or unemployment numbers.  The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta  reports that “The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2016 is 0.4 percent on April 5, down from 0.7 percent on April 1.”

Despite the trinity of bad news, including trade, unemployment, and GDP, combined with the astronomical increase in the federal debt during his tenure, there is no indication that President Obama is changing his fiscal policies.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Army Faces Budgetary Challenges

Budget constraints are taking an increasingly severe toll on the United States Army, impairing its ability to defend the nation. The financial challenges come at a time when threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorists have increased dramatically.

The Army’s base 2017 budget request, including Overseas Contingency Operations, is $125.1 billion.  60% of that figure goes to personnel costs. Major General Thomas Horlander,  the force’s budget director, notes that the Army’s base budget has been reduced by 12% over the past six years, and Overseas Contingency Operations funding has been reduced to 20% of what it was in 2010.

Although America’s adversaries field advanced weaponry and cutting edge technology to a degree greater than ever, the Army’s research budget is being reduced. The 2017 Research, Development and Acquisition budget request of $22.6 billion is a decrease of $1.4 billion from the 2016 enacted levels. According to General Horlander, “the Army had to make some difficult choices between current and future readiness. We assess that this risk will continue until we achieve a greater balance between readiness, end strength and modernization early into the next decade.”

In an article in National Defense magazine General H.R. McMaster, deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command noted that   “Future Army forces may be not only outnumbered … but we also may face enemies who have overmatch capability over us in some key areas…”

The article notes that “Adversary technologies that pose an increasing threat to U.S. forces include: sophisticated air defenses; highly capable anti-tank weapons; unmanned aerial systems and associated swarm capabilities; long-range rockets and artillery; cyber weapons; electronic warfare; anti-satellite capabilities; and advanced combat vehicles…Meanwhile, the Army’s ability to modernize as well as field and sustain critical capabilities ‘is being sorely tested on all fronts,’ said Katrina McFarland, acting assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, technology and logistics.”

The National Commission on the Future of the Army  has completed its analysis on the condition of the Army, and the results are truly worrisome.
So the point is all these men should be choosy before picking up the right product here is Fezinil- natural women cialis australia sex enhancement treatment is totally protected from side effects that individuals may experience when taking the anti-erectile medication. 1. Hope you will follow them and keep yourself away from saturated fats and viagra no prescription india Trans fat. This article highlights 8 of the most important tips that one discount viagra Our pharmacy store can follow to stop erectile dysfunction normally. Erectile dysfunction levitra prescription has all concerns with the erections of the man.
The Commission found that demands made on Army to protect the nation are “significant and, in many cases, increasing. Yet, the Army is down-sizing. After all we have heard, read, seen, and analyzed, we find that an Army of 980,000 is the minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated missions with an acceptable level of national risk. Within that Army of 980,000, the Commission finds that a Regular Army of 450,000, an Army National Guard of 335,000, and an Army Reserve of 195,000 represent, again, the absolute minimums to meet America’s national security objectives. However, the reserve components must be resourced to provide both needed operational capability and the strategic depth the nation requires in the event of a full mobilization for unforeseen requirements. These forces should be maintained at currently planned readiness levels, and every effort should be made to increase funding for modernization…

“Even with budgets permitting a force of 980,000, the Army faces significant shortfalls. Army aviation represents a key example. Today, some aviation assets cannot meet expected wartime capacity requirements. Considering all types of Army units, peacetime demand for aviation assets is among the highest, and demand may grow as threats from Russia and other nations escalate. Retaining an eleventh Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army would help meet these demands. With an eleventh CAB, the Army would be better postured to retain a forward stationed aviation brigade in Korea—a major advantage over rotating forces as currently planned—and shortfalls in capabilities would decline significantly.

“Short-range air defense represents another example of an important shortfall. In the post-Cold War era, the Army envisioned little threat from the air forces of potential adversaries. Recent activities in Ukraine and Syria have demonstrated the threat environment has changed. Yet, no short-range air defense battalions reside in the Regular Army. Moreover, a sizeable percentage of the Army National Guard’s short-range air defense capability is providing essential protection in the National Capital Region, leaving precious little capability for other global contingencies, including in high-threat areas in northeast Asia, southwest Asia, eastern Europe, or the Baltics. Other capabilities with significant shortfalls include tactical mobility; missile defense; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); field artillery; fuel distribution; water purification; watercraft; and military police

“… more efficiencies and fewer redundancies will not be enough; added funding will eventually be needed if major shortfalls are to be eliminated…

“As a result of the budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army had to make many significant trade-offs, including cancelling Combat Training Center rotations and furloughing Army civilians. Moreover, the Army replaced four Army National Guard units scheduled to deploy in June 2013 for overseas operations in order to avoid about $93 million in added costs required to mobilize and deploy the units. Given that year’s tight budget situation, the decision to employ Regular Army units in lieu of reserve component units was understandable. However, these decisions caused longer-term harm by reducing opportunities for leader development and training for reserve component soldiers. The decisions also increased tension and suspicions between the Army components, leaving some reserve units feeling that they were not being treated as an important part of the Army…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Employment, U.S. Economy Remain Poor

For American workers, the economy continues to be unhealthy.

Clinging to a framework of statistics that mask more than they reveal, Americans are told that unemployment has been reduced, and the economy is, far too belatedly, on the road to recovery. That’s not accurate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  March report is a case in point. The release begins: “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 215,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 5.0 percent…” (a slight increase from last month’s 4.9%.)

The problem is in the details. First, the more accurate U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes those only marginally attached to the workforce or forced to work only part time, is at an unacceptable 9.8%. Marketwatch notes “After hitting a post-recession low of 5.8 million in October, the number of people who can only get part-time work has bounced back up to 6.1 million, according to figures from the Labor Department’s household survey.”

Even that doesn’t tell the whole story.  The labor participation rate is at a dismal 63%, a figure near a four decade low. That doesn’t allow a prosperous economy.

Even those who are finding full-time jobs aren’t doing well.  Marketwatch notes that the alleged improvement in job numbers in the aftermath of the recession may be fueled by lower-paying jobs. More Americans are finding jobs with employers such as retail stores, but they aren’t getting the kind of pay and hours they’d like. “circumstantial evidence in the latest U.S. jobs report suggests many of these newly employed workers have found part-time work with mediocre pay.”

Even full time jobs are offering, on average, lesser pay in the latest official government report.  Wages and salaries decreased $9.4 billion in February.
Girls and boys of different india viagra for sale http://djpaulkom.tv/video-happy-420-something-to-smoke-to-da-mafia-6ix/ corner comes closer and make a relation that sustain for life with that attraction first. Besides cost levitra lowest medical remedies, there are some natural erectile dysfunction medications that provide sufficient help in order to get rid of this disease and one of them is erectile dysfunction. It does not matter whether you suffer from order tadalafil no prescription erectile dysfunction. Whenever a man is sexually aroused, viagra in uk the nerves in the brain send impulses to the genital area.
For native U.S. workers, the numbers may be even worse. Breitbart’s analysis of BLS statistics notes that “The number of foreign-born people employed in the United States hit a record high in March. According to the BLS, 25,741,000 foreign-born people had a job in the U.S. last month, an increase of 246,000 over the previous high recorded in November. The unemployment rate among the foreign-born population was 4.8 percent.”

Of the full time positions that are available, those that are the bulwark of a healthy national economy declined,CNS reports. 29,000 manufacturing jobs have recently been lost. BLS  notes that “Most of the job losses occurred in durable goods industries (-24,000), including machinery (-7,000), primary metals (-3,000) and semiconductors and electronic components (-3,000).”

A nation that produces little cannot succeed. An economy dependent for jobs largely on the retail sale of goods made in other nations is one not heading in the right direction.

As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government noted last September, “According to the Economic Policy Instiute    “The United States lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and December 2014… job losses can be traced to growing trade deficits in manufacturing products prior to the Great Recession and then the massive output collapse during the Great Recession…Between 1970 and 2000, manufacturing employment was relatively stable, ranging from 16.8 to 19.6 million, and generally remaining between 17 and 18 million…However, this relationship broke down in the early 2000s, a period of rapidly growing trade deficits.

“What happened? According to the Daily Caller, “Bill Clinton.  It was his efforts at the end of his second administration that opened U.S. markets for Chinese imports.   Under a prior system of rules that apply to communist countries, if the United States had found China to be exporting goods in an unfair manner (e.g., special export subsidies to artificially lower prices), we could respond unilaterally by raising import taxes (tariffs) on Chinese products. This was a relatively simple system of retaliation largely because it was unilateral. Enter Bill Clinton…he pushed to have China become a member of the U.N.’s World Trade Organization (WTO), and to have U.S. trade disputes with China arbitrated by this multilateral organization. Consequently, China was no longer subject to U.S. unilateral action under our trade rules…What about U.S. exports to China?  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2013 our trade deficit with China hit a record high at $318.4 billion…”

The impact to the economy from the decline in U.S. manufacturing is reflected in the nation’s worrisome trade deficit. The Bureau of Economic Analysis latest report reveals that “the goods and services deficit was $45.7 billion in January, up $1.0 billion from $44.7 billion in December…January exports were $176.5 billion, $3.8 billion less than December exports…The January increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $1.1 billion to $63.7 billion and an increase in the services surplus of $0.1 billion to $18.0 billion.Year-over-year, the goods and services deficit increased $2.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, from January 2015. Exports decreased $12.5 billion or 6.6 percent. Imports decreased $10.5 billion or 4.5 percent.”