Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

Older Voters to Play Pivotal Role

A GUEST EDITORIAL BY ELLEN BRANDT, Ph.D, 

“Grays” – American voters age 50 and older – are the invisible disrupters within both major Parties right here, right now. But both major Parties refuse to acknowledge how extraordinarily significant we are.

For the Democrats, this complete lack of acknowledgement is mostly intentional, as their Party seeks to appeal to those voting blocs it still – rightly or wrongly – considers “belong to the Left” – the very young, black Americans, and union members, for example. This strategy, however wrongheaded, at least has some basis in voting precedent and preferences.

But for the GOP, blindly following the lead of the Dems and the “Mainstream Media” is the most egregious mistake they can possibly make.

That’s because “Grays” 50 and over will make up about 50 percent of the actual electorate in the 2016 – and 2020 and 2024 and 2028 – presidential cycles.

“Grays” – not Youth, not Black Americans, not Latinos, not Women, nor any other broad constituency – are the real and true and often most passionate “swing” voters this cycle.

And because Gray voters are skewing dramatically towards Republicans, we  they will almost certainly guarantee a GOP victory this cycle – no matter what the MSM says – so long as our Party doesn’t “seize defeat from the jaws of victory” by continuing to ignore Grays abandon the GOP – or try to turn Grays towardsDemocrats out of sheer misunderstanding and prejudice.

First, some basic Demographic facts which everybody is studiously shying away from:

*People age 50 and over now make up about 43 percent of the U.S. population. In other words, more than 2 in 5 Americans are “Gray” citizens 50 and older.

* Barring massive new immigration or unexpected decreases – rather than expected further increases – in American longevity, the percentage of American citizens age 50 and older will escalate further over the next two decades. Some demographers believe it could approach 50 percent – at which point, 1 in 2 Americans will be “Gray.”

*Since American women still – alas – significantly outlive American men, women in the U.S. are fast approaching that 50 percent mark already. Close to 1 in 2 American women are “Gray” or soon will be.

* But in politicial terms, the key 50 percent mark is here right now. Since Americans age 0-17 still cannot vote, about 1 in 2 U.S. voters in presidential election cycle 2016 – and likely, in cycles 2020, 2024, and 2028 – will be “Gray” voters 50 and over.

*This astonishing statistic becomes even more dramatic, when we take into account that mature voters consistently vote at much higher rates than young voters – a situation which we do not see changing anytime soon.

* Moreover, it is not only possible, but entirely probable, that “Gray” voters over 50 have been responsible for most of the extraordinary Populism exhibited within both major Parties this primary and caucus cycle – Populism which we fully expect to continue into the nomination and election processes this year.

What Gray Voters Want

So what, exactly, do “Gray” Americans over 50 want from our parties, candidates, and government, and how can our renewed activism be harnessed productively and lead to positive political change?

(We’ve written about this broad topic extensively over the past few years, and at the end of this piece, we offer links to some recent stories.)

Here, a brief summary to whet readers’ intellectual appetites:

* Gray Americans want to be financially secure. Despite near-constant propaganda to the contrary, it is older Americans who have been the primary victims of the financial chaos and catastrophes of the past 30 years: downsizing, outsourcing, the decimation of middle management, housing crises, market crashes, and the hollowing out of both manufacturing and resources industries and Main Street small business.

A large proportion of Americans over 50 have lost much or all of their life’s savings and are hanging on for dear life, a crisis or two away from falling off the proverbial financial cliff. And despite the recent emphasis on “lunchbucket” Americans, particularly within the GOP, white-collar workers, professionals, and small business owners over 50 have been at least as hard hit and are struggling as much or more than blue-collar workers.
Handsome UP: It is sildenafil online no prescription a simple yet effective method of getting rid of sexual hurdles. If this does happen than it is advisable to take this herb after consulting with a physician. cheap cialis amerikabulteni.com You just need to take the cialis online mastercard pill an hour before you make love with your partner. In viagra cheap prices fact, men organ being active is not unique to you.
* Gray Americans want to be secure – period. Older citizens are more likely than other groups to be homeowners, business owners, and have strong ties to their local communities. And they want those homes, businesses, and communities to stay safe.

Mature Americans are concerned about national security and domestic safety. And many Grays are strongly opposed to unbridled new immigration, on economic grounds, as well as security grounds.

* Gray Americans want to be recognized. We’re already more than 2 in 5 Americans and close to 1 in 2 voters. But you’d never know it from the scant attention paid to us by the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) – or by many politicians who follow the MSM’s faulty lead.

There is simply too little coverage of “Gray” attitudes, issues, and needs and too few programs geared to a constituency whose continued well-being and economic security is of make-or-break significance to our economy and our nation.

* Gray Americans want to get back on center stage. Recognizing this essential concept is especially important to my Republican Party right now.

The Democrats, many Grays feel, have touted a recovery, especially in terms of jobs, based on pure hocus pocus, a Ponzi scheme in which good jobs have been taken away from people over 50; financially engineered and repackaged; and subsequently gifted to much younger, less educated, and less experienced workers.

People over 50 make up a large proportion of the long-term unemployed and under-employed and are the greatest factor in what is now an historically low labor participation rate. Many – possibly most – older Americans have no desire to be forced into retirement against our wills, nor to become dependent on entitlements or charity. We want to work. We want to earn. We want to be productive. We want to contribute to America’s continued well-being.

* Gray Americans want to be cherished. Throughout history, societies which fail to respect and honor and protect their older citizens quickly become failed societies.

The Mature are supposed to be at the top, not the bottom, of the societal pyramid, valued for our experience, our sophisticated thinking, our accomplishments, and our wisdom.

At the moment, we have an inverted pyramid – and the problems that’s causing are fast engulfing our ability to correct them.

We’ve become trapped in a paradox of massive proportions: Through advances in healthcare and education, longevity in America – and the rest of the developed world – is increasing apace.

But what is the value of those extra years of life, if Americans are told they have to spend the last 30 or 40 – or soon 50 or 60? – years of their existence warehoused and isolated and unproductive?

In an economic sense, we Grays- especially we Republicans – seek less government intervention and an end to ever-escalating entitlements, fast bankrupting the nation itself.

But the best – perhaps the only – way to stop such a nightmare scenario in its tracks is by dramatically increasing the participation of Gray Americans over 50 in our economic life.

We need more growth, not less, and a bigger economic pie in which everyone is allowed to share. People should be encouraged and assisted to work as much as they want to work throughout their lifespans, until they are physically or intellectually unable to do so.

We need to harness Gray productivity, Gray creativity, Gray talent, intelligence, sophistication, and wisdom.

For the good of everyone. And the good of this nation.

Ellen Brandt, Ph.D., has been a high-volume journalist – and now blogger – for over 40 years, as well as a magazine editor, corporate financial communications executive, and college professor. She is the founder of the recently-launched Party of Yes group, which hopes to help to remake the so-called Mainstream Media, persuading it to be kinder, gentler, and more inclusive of Republican ideas, issues, and voices.

For additional reading, here are some links to Dr. Brandt’s recent stories on related topics: Ten Populist Issues in 2016; Restoring the American Dream; Of Course, We Should All Be Feminists; The GOP and the Restoration of Morality; The GOP and Mainstream Media.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Brazil’s Lessons for the U.S.

To mask the failure of her left wing policies, Brazil’s President Rousseff allegedly violated federal budget laws by using loans from government banks to hide the size of her administrations’ budget deficit. The charge has led to an impeachment.

Brazil’s poor balance of trade, the unaffordability of its social welfare policies, its rejection of free market solutions, the lack of concern for the middle class and the increasing use of left-wing policies that are bankrupting the nation are the hallmarks of her regime. Brazil has experienced its worst recession in nearly a century.  To U.S. voters, those problems seem familiar, and Brazil’s near collapse is a warning for America’s future.

Brazil and the United States are both giant Western Hemisphere nations. They have, however, taken different paths politically and economically.  Those differences in the past, and potential similarities going forward, are instructive in determining what policies produce desirable social and economic results.

Brazil did not have a constitution until 1891, and during its early history actually had an emperor. Subsequently, military and strong-arm rule inhibited the nation’s development, as did its eventual engagement of leftist policies. Whether monarchial in its early days, strong-arm rule later on and leftist currently, the vast South American nation has fairly consistently been subjected to a top-down brand of economic governance rather than a grass roots capitalist approach.

The end result was a nation with poverty only temporarily mitigated over the past few decades, primarily by commodity prices for its vast mineral and agricultural wealth. The commodities boom funded social welfare programs that lifted, according to Global Advisor, 40 million people out of poverty by the years after 2013.  But the gains were temporary.

An adherence to policies that inhibited the rise of the free market prevented the commodities boom from being used to develop a truly viable national economy. As a result, notes Ruchir Sharma in the Wall Street Journal, Brazil’s GDP growth rate has fallen from 7.5% in 2010 to minus 3.5% in 2015. Government spending accounts for 41% of GDP. Focus Economics   panelists see the economy contracting 3.4% in 2016, which is down 0.5 percentage points from last month’s forecast.
Dosage: Take this pill as required 20-60 prior order generic cialis minutes participating in sexual action. It is also sometimes said to be levitra online canada http://downtownsault.org/pubcrawl/ impotence. As massage Orlando myofascial release speclick here for more info order cialis onlinets will tell you, it takes chronic inflammation to cause fibrosis of the fascia and ultimately pain. Never take more than one dose of viagra samples in canada at discount can be exceptionally adversely affected by specific people.
“Today,” Sharma reports, “the average Brazilian income is about 16% of the U.S. average, with basically no gain for 100 years.”  Average income has fallen from $13,000 in 2011 to $8,000.

Brazil endures a sharp divide between a comparatively small group of wealthy families, a beleaguered middle class, and a large number of citizens in poverty. The inequality explains the attraction of leftist policies, which produced very significant, but temporary, gains at the cost of eventual prosperity. In essence, Brazil has never truly changed its strong-arm government. It merely replaced monarchial, military, and strong arm rule with socialism, and all have basically the same inhibiting effect on the free market. Its economy has contracted by 3.8%.

Jacob Maslow, writing in the Streetwise blog, believes that socialist policies briefly appeared attractive when commodity prices were high, but now “expensive government programs are taking their toll. It is going to be a long time for Brazil to get out of the hole that it is in right now. I am not sure if improvements in global commodities prices will do the trick. The problem is more systematic than people care to admit. Not surprisingly, the Brazilian rial has dropped against the US dollar by 18%. Expect it to drop even further.”

Rather than invest in measures that would produce a more varied free market economy that could withstand the boom and bust cycle of commodity prices, President Rousseff and her Workers’ Party adhered to socialist policies that gained support among the poor for the temporary relief it brought, at the expense of long-term gains. Trade union figures play a key role in her regime, and they are not particularly prone to make compromises that replace temporary current benefits for long-term economic growth.

The U.S., thanks to a capitalist philosophy, has developed into the world’s most powerful economy. Brazil languishes in financial doldrums.  It is ironic, then, that the Obama Administration, and the policies of the two Democrat candidates vying to succeed it, have supported policies which are more akin to the failed South American giant then to the traditional path the U.S. has followed.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Threats in South Asia, Africa and Latin America

Will the United States repeat the mistake it made in the Middle East—withdrawing its military without leaving a sufficient residual force to prevent a takeover by extremists? The Taliban’s growing resurgence points to a strong potential for that to occur. 

On another continent, the increased presence of ISIS in Africa also provides a great deal to be concerned about.  Add to that the growing presence of Russia, China, Iran and terrorists groups in Latin America, and it becomes clear that the coming years will bear the consequences of the severe policy errors of the Obama Administration.

Today’s report concludes our excerpts from key portions of the testimony by USMC Lt. General Vincent R. Stewart, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to the House Armed Services Committee on key threats facing the United States.

SOUTH ASIA, AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA

Afghanistan

In 2015, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) took primary responsibility for security in Afghanistan for the first full year. The Afghan National Army conducted several independent multi-corps operations against the insurgency in diverse regions of the country. Security forces also successfully secured almost all provincial capitals and national lines of communication, to include major highways. A positive development in the evolution of the ANDSF is the use of special operations forces to effectively respond to terrorist threats and to deny safe haven to networks across the country, albeit with coalition support.

Despite these increased capabilities, the ANDSF is still facing significant challenges in leadership, combat enablers, logistics and sustainment, and ministerial capacity. The ANDSF cannot manage the insurgency and ensure security across Afghanistan without further improvement in these key areas and the development of human capital. The 2015 fighting season highlighted these shortfalls and a security posture which is overstretched and ineffectively utilized. The temporary fall of Kunduz City in September 2015, the result of Taliban efforts to expand operations in northern Afghanistan and exploit ANDSF capability gaps, illustrated these deficiencies. Despite the Afghan Army’s ability to mount effective counterattacks to regain lost terrain — as in Kunduz —the force is challenged to effectively employ organic aerial and ground fire enablers in support of reactive operations.

The late July announcement of former leader Mullah Omar’s death, and the contentious accession of new leader Mullah Mansour, led to the emergence of a Taliban opposition faction in late 2015. Infighting between Mansour’s supporters and the opposition has occurred, and the Taliban have faced competition from the ISIL’s emergent regional affiliate. The Taliban and the ISIL are focused on countering the international presence and expanding territorial footholds in Afghanistan. In the 2016 fighting season, we expect the Taliban-led insurgency will try to build on its temporary victory in Kunduz by attempting to surround and pressure population centers. They will also seek to make incremental gains in rural areas and conduct high-profile attacks against government and civilian targets in key cities, particularly Kabul.

Pakistan

In 2016, Islamabad will face internal security threats from militant, sectarian, and separatist groups. ISIL in Khorasan and al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent also will remain significant security concerns for Islamabad. Counterinsurgency operations along Pakistan’s Western border and paramilitary operations in Karachi have had some success in reducing violence and are likely to continue.

Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile continues to grow. We are concerned that this growth, as well as the evolving doctrine associated with tactical nuclear weapons, increases the risk of an incident or accident. Islamabad continues to take steps to improve its nuclear security, and is aware of the threat presented by extremists to its program.

She suspected me of having an affair and if that discount cialis canada happens, it’s game over before it starts.Well, as it turns out, there is one particularly simple and straightforward subject line that WILL get your emails opened every time. He has gone through your stuff, selected what he thought he would like, and treated your home like a supermarket! Is there any reason to think he hasn’t been in prison, doesn’t know how to Market!!! I have converted my hurting, acquired through cialis 5mg cheap the school of hard knocks to your grow in my Free of charge InLife marketing training. Caverta is dark-red triangular tablet and Kamagra is blue discount viagra quadrangular. If you’ve caught the ad campaign running late Recommended pharmacy store purchase generic levitra in the evening for this latest innovation, you’ll probably want to find out how to buy Extenze and when it will be available. INDIA and PAKISTAN: Tensions between India and Pakistan subsided in late 2015 following high-level diplomatic engagement and an agreement to continue talks next year. However, there remains a significant risk that tensions could once again escalate with little warning, particularly if there is a large-scale terrorist attack in India.

Africa

Africa’s security environment is volatile due to dysfunctional political systems, conflict, and permissive environments for transnational terrorist and criminal groups. The region remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks, civil conflict, outbreaks of mass violence, trafficking networks, and humanitarian emergencies. Additionally, depressed global commodity prices and internal economic mismanagement and corruption are negatively impacting Africa’s economic growth prospects and limiting government resources, weakening state capacity to respond to security threats. African and UN forces are responding to most security challenges, but most of the region’s militaries continue to require sustained international assistance to address the continent’s security environment.

In North Africa, years of civil conflict over political control of Libya and an expanding extremist presence in the country are the most pressing security concerns. UN sponsored negotiations to end the political impasse in Libya are slowly progressing, though obstacles to establishing a unified and functioning government will persist. ISIL has taken advantage of this permissive environment to establish a stronghold in the coastal Libyan city of Surt. Libya’s instability has enabled the flow of illicit activity across the country’s porous borders and increased concerns over a heightened terrorist threat across North Africa and the Sahel region. The Libyan conflict and terrorist safe haven will persist until an inclusive unity government is established and secured by a loyal and capable military, which is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

West Africa’s Sahel and Lake Chad regions are also contending with a number of violent extremist groups. The military forces within this region are stretched to defend against entrenched extremist groups or to confront cross-border extremist attacks. Given the enduring presence of terror groups in northern Mali, partner nations are working with Bamako to help reform and improve its military, and UN forces are securing major towns in the country’s northern region. However, much work remains to be done to contain extremist threats in Mali and across the Sahel region. In northeastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad region, terror attacks by the Islamic State (IS)-West Africa, also known as Boko Haram, persist and are likely to continue despite the combined military efforts of Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, and Chad. The four states are working to operationalize the Multi National Joint Task Force to better combat IS–West Africa, but the results have been limited and efforts to address the socio-political drivers of IS–West Africa’s success have lagged.

Parts of central and eastern Africa are at risk of instability over the next year, necessitating the continuing presence of peacekeepers. In Somalia, al-Shabaab attacks and control of some rural areas will persist as African Union troops, supported by the nascent Somali National Army, attempt to sustain control of southern region population centers. The January 15 al-Shabaab attack on a Kenyan military camp in southern Somalia highlighted the fragility of the country’s security environment.

The risk of episodic violence in the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Sudan will also continue despite peace and stability efforts. In Burundi, opposition to President Nkurunziza’s third term has increased the risk of ethnic violence with potentially destabilizing regional implications. Ongoing efforts to extend presidential terms in Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Republic of Congo could spark new episodes of unrest. Additionally, the potential death or incapacitation of several heads of state throughout the region, especially in Zimbabwe, would contribute to a heightened risk of regional instability.

Latin America

Latin American nations continue to confront transnational threats challenging regional stability and prosperity, and the region remains vulnerable to transit by bad actors. At the same time, nations outside the hemisphere are seeking greater regional influence.

Mexico remains the primary transit country for U.S.-bound cocaine, and a major supplier of methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras face some of the highest levels of violence in the world, exacerbated by drug trafficking and gang activities. Colombian cocaine production significantly increased in 2014, the majority of which is destined for the U.S. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgent group is in peace talks with the government and has 5,000-7,000 members capable of surging short-duration offensives against government outposts and critical infrastructure. The FARC, the National Liberation Army, and criminal bands continue to profit from the drug trade.

Russia continues to engage with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and probably wants access for Russian military forces to ports and airfields in those countries.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court to Examine Obama Immigration Move

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas case, concerning whether President Obama’s move to delay the deportation of almost 5 million undocumented immigrants is legal.

SCOTUSBLOG outlines the issues:

** Did President Obama exceed the powers of his office in going forward with a massive new immigration policy without approval by Congress, and thus violating that act’s direct restrictions on the use of executive branch power?

** Is the deferred deportation policy a product of “arbitrary and capricious” actions by President Obama and his cabinet departments, and thus violates that act?

** Is the policy subject to review in the courts, applying the act, or are the specific modes of enforcing immigration laws a matter left to the discretion of the president and his cabinet?

** Is the policy illegal, under the APA, [Administrative Procedure Act] because it was not first announced as a draft program, offered to the public for its reactions, or then issued in final form, or is the policy exempt from that requirement because it was achieved through executive branch discretion?

As important as the immigration issue is, the more pressing question concerns the balance of power within the federal government. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)has stated: “The case of United States v. Texas is fundamentally about preserving the separation of powers and its outcome will have drastic implications for our Republic. All three branches of government have weighed in against President Obama’s unilateral actions: the lower courts have blocked them from being implemented, the House of Representatives has filed a brief opposing them, and the President himself stated over 20 times – before he took his unilateral action – that he does not have the authority to change our nation’s immigration laws on his own.  I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stop President Obama’s lawlessness so that we protect the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the legislative branch, which reflects the will of and is accountable to the American people, makes the laws, not the President.”

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd testified before the House judiciary Committee in March. He confirmed the existence of what has become known as “catch and release”. According to Judd, “This program directly violates the President’s ‘Priority Enforcement Guidelines’ by refusing to process and deport those who have entered the US illegally after December 31, 2013.”

order viagra sample This may sooner or later lead to mental breakdown. Agents that aid brain function related to excitement signals increase, and the smooth tissues viagra sildenafil and muscles get taut to bring hard on. Storage: Store room temperature away brand cialis for sale from sunlight and moisture in a tight container. Do ensure that you don’t suffer cialis on line australia from vertigo, because this restaurant is located on the 95th floor! Alinea Regulars have described Alinea in the following way: if Bobby Flay’s Bar American were a Coach bag, then the Alinea would be a one-of-a-kind alligator Hermes Birkin! The popularity of this restaurant has grown with each passing year, thanks to the efforts of an extraordinary group of individuals to make. Judd further asks: “Why have Guidelines if you are not going to follow them?…

President Obama … and his cronies continue to mislead and misinform them as they expand amnesty and weaken enforcement and security.

He presented five questions that he wants the White House to answer:

# 1: If the President was expanding his amnesty programs why not just be straight with the American people?

#2: Does this expansion put our communities at risk? … It appears that President Obama’s priority is not and will never be enforcement but amnesty.

#3 : Is the Commissioner power hungry or incompetent? Either he has to go. This hearing should put the spotlight on Richard Gil Kerlikowske the current Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Judd questions Kerlikowske’s leadership and ability to head U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If he was following directives from the President then the President owes the public an explanation why he kept this a secret. If the President was unaware of the program he needs to restore public trust by removing those responsible. It is sad that after seven years, Obama’s has no plan to enforce our nation’s immigrations laws.

# 4 : Why not ask for additional resource to address the court backlog? If the Administration was concerned with the court’s backlog why not request additional funds to expedite the case by either hiring more judges or expanding Operation Streamline. Simply put, the Administration is not be interested in fixing a problem they intentionally created. They have manipulated the situation to expand their amnesty programs without Congressional or pubic consent.

# 5: Isn’t this just a page torn from the “Dreamers Playbook” ? The main argument “Dreamer” made was by no fault of their own they were here illegally and should not be held responsible this act and therefore granted citizenship. It is reasonable that those not issued NTA as part to “Catch and Release” program will make the same claim as part demand for amnesty. The Administration and the Democrats must believe this is good politics.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Russian Threat

In the 2012 presidential campaign, candidate Mitt Romney stated that Russia was again a major threat.  His comment was met with much derision on the part of the media and his Democrat opponent. Following the 2009 New Start Treaty, which gave Moscow, for the first time, a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, and a massive investment in expanding and modernizing all elements of its armed forces, the Kremlin threat is very real indeed. Its greatly strengthened military, combined with President Putin’s aggressiveness, its alliance with China and Iran, and the weakening of U.S. forces due to budgetary constraints, renders Russia an even greater threat than in the Cold War era.

In March, USMC Lt. General Vincent R. Stewart, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, addressed the House Armed Services Committee on key threats facing the United States. Presented in today’s report is the portion of his examination that reviews the growing threat from Moscow.

RUSSIA

Moscow continues to devote major resources to modernizing its military forces, viewing military power as critical to achieving key strategic objectives: acknowledged great power status, dominating smaller regional states and deterring NATO from military action in Eurasia. Russian leadership considers a capable and survivable nuclear force as the foundation of its strategic deterrent capability, and modernized, agile general purpose forces as vital for Eurasian and limited out-of-area power projection.

Moscow’s assertive pursuit of foreign policy and security objectives includes military involvement in Ukraine, operations in Syria and expansion of its military capabilities in the Arctic. Last year, the Russian military continued its robust exercise schedule and its aggressive, and sometimes provocative, out-of-area deployments. We anticipate similar high levels of military activity in 2016, although Moscow’s military modernization efforts will be complicated by economic and demographic challenges.

Operations in Syria

Moscow, a long-time ally of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, has supplied the Syrian regime with weapons, supplies, and intelligence throughout the Syrian civil war. Moscow began to deploy military forces to Syria in late August 2015, likely both to shore up the regime and assert Russia’s status as a military player and powerbroker in the Middle East. The majority of Russian air strikes, artillery and rocket fires initially supported regime ground offensives and focused on opposition targets. An increasing number of strikes have since targeted Islamic State forces and facilities while sustaining operations against the opposition. Tensions between Russia and Turkey following the November 24,, 2015 downing of a Su-24 bomber have not impacted the pace of Russian air operations.

Russia has sought to use the Syrian intervention as a showcase for its military modernization program and advanced conventional weapons systems. Moscow has launched land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) from Caspian Sea naval units and a Kilo-class submarine in the Mediterranean Sea. They have also demonstrated new capabilities with air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) from its Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95MS Bear H heavy bombers. These operations are meant to demonstrate strategic capabilities and message the West about the manner in which the Russian military could operate in a major conventional conflict.

Russia will almost certainly be able to logistically support its current level of operations in Syria via a mix of air, naval, and commercial maritime means for the foreseeable future. Moscow may opt to increase its forces in Syria if unable to make progress on securing increased acceptance and support for the Assad Regime, or if support to regime ground offensives are unsuccessful. The most likely additions would be additional air and artillery assets, and potentially include Russian-led and -enabled proxy forces.
As a first-generation university student, you have more than one address, then put all the addresses into the BCC (which stands for Blind Carbon Copy) field of levitra sales your email. However, it was filled with hydrogen which was gained by pouring almost a quarter of a tone of sulphuric acid buy brand viagra onto half a tone of scrap iron. In fact, studies have shown that as many as one in every ten people have gone through a very stressful time vardenafil sale due to erectile dysfunction. You will surprise to see the result of cialis on line psychological factors too.

Ukraine Crisis

In September 2015, Moscow began placing more emphasis on diplomacy after a year of often intense fighting along the line of contact. While maintaining the strong separatist military force it trained, equipped, and furnished with leadership, the Kremlin focused on implementing the Minsk II agreement to institutionalize influence with Ukraine without risking more sanctions. Despite deemphasizing a military approach to Ukraine, Moscow retains the ability to rapidly redeploy troops to the border, including prepositioning logistics stockpiles.

Military Doctrine and Strategy

Russia’s military doctrine reflects its perception of a heightened threat environment and sense of urgency about its preparedness to address those perceived threats. Moscow has moved to further improve its capabilities to meet what it sees as Western challenges to its internal stability, dominance of neighboring states and status as a great power abroad. In 2016, Russia will attempt to optimize its strategic forces, develop precision strike weapons, create efficiencies in defense industry, and improve professional military training and education. Russia will also seek to prepare its economy and state and local governments to transition from peace to war-time.

The Arctic and Associated International Disputes

The Arctic — and associated international disputes — is a major emphasis for Russian security policy. Moscow has increased the readiness of its Northern Fleet through increased exercise activities and refurbishing airbases and has added air-defense and coastal-defense cruise missiles and ground force assets to the region. The Joint Strategic Command (OSK) “North,” established in late 2014 on the basis of the Northern Fleet, will be reinforced by an air force and air defense (PVO) army. Despite this increased military focus on the Arctic, we believe Russia will likely prefer to use existing multilateral and bilateral mechanisms to address competing claims and other security issues in the region.

Force Modernization

Russia’s future force will be smaller, but more capable of handling a range of contingencies on Russia’s periphery and expeditionary operations. We expect continued effort to improve joint operations capabilities and rearmament. Russia’s ambitious rearmament program will be challenged by corruption and industrial inefficiency, Western sanctions, and the poor state of its economy. Moscow will continue its military modernization efforts despite these difficulties, but many major programs will likely face delays or cuts.

Russia places the highest priority on the maintenance of its robust arsenal of strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Moscow is making large investments in its nuclear weapon programs. Strategic nuclear forces priorities include force modernization and command and control facilities upgrades. Russia will field more road-mobile SS-27 Mod-2 ICBMs with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, deploy more Dolgorukiy class ballistic missile submarines with SS-N-32 Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and will continue the development of the RS-26 ICBM and next-generation cruise missiles.

Space and Counterspace

Russia is advancing its space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and has nearly doubled the number of satellites in its ISR constellation since 2014. Moscow views U.S. dependence on space systems as key enablers for military operations as a vulnerability. Russian military doctrine highlights counterspace capability as a force multiplier. Russia has a highly advanced space surveillance network, a prerequisite for counterspace operations, and is modernizing and expanding these systems. Russia’s counterspace capabilities include satellite warning-enabled denial and deception and jamming systems targeting satellite communications. Russian leaders assert that their armed forces have antisatellite weapons and conduct antisatellite research.

Categories
Quick Analysis

DIA Director Gen. Stewart on the Middle East

In March, USMC Lt. General Vincent R. Stewart, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, addressed the House Armed Services Committee on key threats facing the United States. His testimony is notable in that, unlike the almost complete absence of emphasis on military affairs from the Obama Administration, General Stewart presents a disturbing review of a growing crisis in national security. Presented in today’s report is the portion of his examination that discusses the Middle East.

MIDDLE EAST

The security challenges have rapidly multiplied since 2011, as nations are confronted with simultaneous internal and external threats including terrorism, subnational armed groups, and conventional military threats. The region’s threat environment has become more dangerous and unpredictable with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) emergence, and many nations are using the rubric of combatting terrorists to eliminate their political or sectarian adversaries. Drivers of unrest — aging authoritarian leaders, lack of political transparency, corruption, insufficient economic opportunity, and sparse social mobility — will also remain, compounded by the consequences of the Arab Awakening: civil conflict, ungoverned spaces, social cleavages, instability spillover, and growing Iranian involvement. My comments on this volatile and important region will focus on Syria, Iraq and Iran.

SYRIA: The civil war in Syria is a manifestation of the region’s precarious transition since 2011. As the two sides pursue political dialogue, the regime is unlikely to be militarily defeated or collapse in the near-term and is poised to enter 2016 in a stronger military position against the opposition in light of increased support from its key allies: Iran, Lebanese Hizballah, and Russia. Increased Russian involvement probably will also help the regime regain key terrain in high priority areas, such as Aleppo and Idlib..

Despite regime advantages, territory is likely to be contested in 2016. We anticipate the regime’s strategy will be to bolster defenses along Syria’s western spine — from northern Dara to northeastern Latakia — and to conduct operations to impede key opposition supply lines. We also expect the regime to press ISIL and secure areas around the Ash Shaer gas fields, degrading the group’s presence around key energy infrastructure sites.

A divided Syrian opposition is likely to suffer from inconsistent command and control and access to resources. Anti-regime forces continue to fight each other and the regime, with al-Qa’ida’s Syria-based affiliate Al-Nusrah Front and ISIL making gains at the expense of more moderate anti-regime forces. Increased Russian involvement is likely to harden the opposition’s stance towards the regime and may undermine moderate forces cohesion, increasing the chance for radicalization among moderate opposition members. This could result in opposition groups cooperating or merging with terrorist groups to survive regime offensives. The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Force likely will seek to cut lines of control to ISIL’s de facto capital of Raqqah, but will probably be incapable of capturing it.

ISIL controls large swaths of Syria and Iraq, to include strongholds of Raqqah, Mosul, and Fallujah. In 2015, coalition airstrikes impeded ISIL’s ability to operate openly in Iraq and Syria, caused it to curtail use of conventional military equipment, and forced it to lower its profile. In 2016, the growing number of anti-ISIL forces and emerging resource issues will probably challenge ISIL’s ability to govern in Iraq and Syria. However, the group probably will retain large Sunni Arab urban centers, enabled by strong military capabilities, leadership, and command and control.

IRAQ: Systemic institutional deficiencies hinder the progress of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the Kurdish Peshmerga, and Shia and Sunni Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in achieving key military objectives against ISIL. The ISF lacks sufficient logistics and military preparedness, exacerbating poor morale. Force generation is complicated by a lack of experienced and qualified soldiers, while funding and materiel shortfalls hamper the Sunni mobilization program.

The ISF cannot defend against foreign threats or sustain conventional military operations against domestic challenges without continued foreign assistance. The recapture of Sinjar in November and the Ramadi government center in December depended on extensive coalition airstrikes and other support. Through 2016, the ISF writ large is likely to continue to need coalition support to combat ISIL on multiple fronts. Iraq is diversifying defense acquisitions through foreign suppliers such as Russia, Iran, and other non-U.S. suppliers to overcome equipment shortfalls and capability gaps. However, the ISF lacks a coherent procurement strategy, adversely impacting the interoperability of current and future military equipment.

In 2016, we expect the Government of Iraq to rely heavily on support from the primarily Shia Popular Mobilization Committee (PMC) forces. PMC forces, with ISF support, made gains last year against ISIL in the strategically important city of Bayji. They are now poised to attack ISIL in Bayji’s surrounding areas. Kurdish forces have also re-taken territory from ISIL in Northern Iraq, and we expect continued Kurdish counter-ISIL operations in 2016. The Kurds likely will maintain, and possibly expand, their buffer zone with ISIL, which could include moving further into ethnically-mixed areas in northern Iraq. Such moves serve to amplify existing tensions between the Peshmerga and Baghdad’s forces in these areas, and threaten to intensify sectarian tensions between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq. While there have been no attacks against U.S. or coalition forces by Iran, Lebanese Hizballah, or their proxies, the potential threat will almost certainly persist through 2016.
Men with such sexual issue won’t have the capacity to keep viagra viagra up erection amid the intercourse. Best cialis generic overnight performs simply like a couple of other erectile malfunction treatments there are also shot solutions available. Jonathan water filter shower is also armed with a generic viagra generic two-stage filter system. To manage external stress from destroying sexual life, the person needs to maintain a daily routine including exercise, recreational time, occasional breaks from causal aspect etc. cialis generika
IRAN: Iran remains a threat to regional stability as its national interests often diverge from our own and those of our regional allies. Iran’s national security priorities are ensuring regime survival, expanding regional influence, and enhancing Tehran’s military capabilities and deterrence posture.

Iran’s security strategy is based on deterrence, withstanding an initial strike should deterrence fail, and retaliating to force a diplomatic resolution. Iran uses underground facilities and denial and deception extensively to conceal and protect its strategic assets. We do not anticipate changes to this security posture in 2016. Iran will focus on defending allies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, with its actions intended to increase regional influence at Western expense.

In January, Iran fulfilled key commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This extended the timeline for Iran to gather enough fissile material to build a weapon to about a year. In exchange, Iran received sanctions relief under the agreement, but such economic relief is unlikely to have an immediate impact on Iran’s military capabilities. Over the long term, however, economic growth could support its conventional military priorities such as ballistic and cruise missiles, naval systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and air and air defense systems.

Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of striking targets throughout the region, ranging as far as southeastern Europe. Iran is likely to continue developing more sophisticated missiles, with improved accuracy, range, and lethality, irrespective of JCPOA implementation. Iran stated publicly it intends to launch the Simorgh Space-Launch Vehicle (SLV), which would be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) ranges if configured as such. This test launch could occur in 2016.

Iran continues to develop additional anti-access/area denial capabilities. The Navy is fielding increasingly lethal weapons, to include more advanced mines, small submarines, armed UAVs, attack craft, and ship and shore based anti-ship capable cruise missiles. Tehran is also prioritizing the improvement of its air and air defense forces. For example, last year Iran signed a contract with Russia to purchase the advanced and highly capable S-300 Surface to Air Missile (SAM) system, putting it one step closer to modernizing its antiquated air defense system.

The survival and stability of its key Iraqi and Syrian allies is an Iranian priority. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force and Lebanese Hizballah are important foreign policy instruments, and provide Tehran the ability to project power in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. In 2016, we expect Iran and Hizballah to increase the provision of training, materiel, and funding to forces defending the Syrian Regime.

In Iraq, Iran and Hizballah train and advise Iraqi Shia militant groups, and provide training and equipment to Government of Iraq forces. Iranian advisers have planned and led operations against ISIL. Iranian-supported Iraqi Shia groups also warn of their willingness and preparedness to fight U.S. forces in Iraq. Although almost certainly not at the direction of Iran or group leadership, low-level Shia group members may have conducted attacks against coalition aircraft and personnel.

In late 2015, Iran deployed over 1,000 ground troops to engage in combat operations in Syria. The arrival of Iranian ground forces coincided with the start of Russian airstrikes and increased Russian support to pro-regime operations. Tehran and Moscow have deepened their cooperation and are coordinating operations in Syria to preserve their Syrian ally, while also participating in diplomatic talks aimed at ending the conflict.

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.