Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO Reports Increased Threats

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO rightfully received significant credit for staring down what had been one of history’s most formidable military powers.

Moscow has once again become a major armed threat.  Indeed, it is now in a stronger position than it was during the first Cold War, thanks in equal measure to the bellicosity of Vladimir Putin and the pacifism of Barack Obama.

For far too long, the defense budgets of the United States and to an even greater extent those of our NATO allies have been underfunded. In recognition of the Kremlin’s growing danger, attention is starting to be paid by the western alliance to its diminished strength.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has released his annual report on the challenges facing the alliance.

He notes that “The security environment in 2015 was one of complex challenges and unpredictable threats to the safety of citizens in the Euro-Atlantic area and around the world. Violent extremism and instability in the Middle East and North Africa persisted, worsening the humanitarian crises in Syria and Iraq, and fuelling the largest flow of refugees in decades. Terrorists attacked in Ankara and Paris, Beirut and San Bernardino. They killed indiscriminately, bombing a plane of Russians on holiday in Egypt, shooting tourists in Tunisia and gunning down concert-goers and others out for an evening in France. Through these acts, terrorists attempted to disrupt people’s everyday lives and fragment the rules-based societies and systems that are the foundation of stability and prosperity.

“Russia continued to pursue a more assertive and unpredictable military posture in 2015. While persisting in illegally occupying parts of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, and continuing to support separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, Russia also began a military operation in Syria, not as part of the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL but in support of the Assad regime. The serious risks associated with ignoring or skirting agreed international rules and procedures were brought to light in 2015, when violations of Turkish airspace led to the downing of a Russian jet…

“NATO is fully committed to the collective defence of all Allies and continues to bolster the readiness and responsiveness of its forces. Throughout 2015, NATO continued to implement the Readiness Action Plan…providing assurance for Allies in the eastern part of the Alliance, supporting Turkey as it is faced with instability in the South, and adapting so that NATO is prepared for the challenges of today and tomorrow. These actions have contributed to the most significant reinforcement of NATO’s collective defence in decades.
This type of activity is mostly illegal, and users buy viagra australia or marketers who employ them often get banned from the social site. As with other erectile dysfunction medicines, these drugs also work by relaxing blood arteries, improving blood flow and thereby enhancing sildenafil tabs the quality of erection. A man with decreased sexual important link commander levitra desire will be restore soon. As in tadalafil 5mg buy the design, chemical configurations and work ability of Generic Tadalafil has been taken.
“NATO agreed a hybrid strategy to cope with the fast-moving challenges posed through a range of military and non-military means. The Alliance exercised its forces in a variety of scenarios throughout the year, including in its largest exercise in over a decade which brought together more than 36,000 troops from over 30 countries…

“In 2015, Allies invested in defence and security, developing and improving their capabilities, including ballistic missile defence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and cyber defence. Allies worked together and with partners on the operations and missions in which NATO is engaged, from training and advising in Afghanistan to maritime monitoring in the Mediterranean.

“NATO deepened its cooperation with partners across a range of areas to build capacity, enhance interoperability and to generate a better understanding of and approach to a variety of shared challenges to security…

“The Alliance continued to stand by Ukraine in 2015, enhancing its support to Ukraine as it works to improve its governance and security structures, despite the ongoing conflict in the eastern part of the country…NATO continued to adapt as an institution in 2015, implementing reforms to its civilian and military structures to ensure a modern, efficient, effective and accountable institution.”

One challenge that the Secretary General cannot diplomatically address in public is the continued underfunding of western military forces.  Even before the disinvestment in U.S. defense under the Obama Administration, European nations had significantly failed to provide remotely adequate financial support.

In the United Kingdom, as noted by the Guardian, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has advocated British nuclear disarmament, despite Russia’s atomic weapons buildup under President Putin.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Moscow’s Commanding Lead in Nuclear Arms

In the aftermath of the New Start Treaty with Russia agreed to by President Obama, the United States for the first time in history, assumed a position of nuclear inferiority.

The numbers are clear. As noted by the Arms Control Association, Russia has 7,700 warheads to America’s 7,100. Russian sources, however, note that in one category, Moscow has an even greater lead. The Moscow Times reports that “By most estimates, the United States today deploys just between 200 and 300 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, compared to Russia’s arsenal of between 2,000 and 3,000.”

The Kremlin’s commanding lead goes beyond mere numbers. While Russia has diligently modernized its nuclear arsenal, its U.S. counterpart is aged and deteriorating.

The Heritage Foundation notes:

“there is still an enormous disparity between U.S. efforts and those of Russia and China with respect to nuclear modernization, not to mention the difference between their force expansion and U.S. reductions in nuclear capability.

“The U.S. currently does not plan to replace the existing elements of the U.S. nuclear triad until they are 40–80 years of age. This is dangerous because a large part of the U.S. deterrent will reach this age within 15 years. It is also uncertain whether or not all elements of the existing force can survive this long and still be effective…Until 2021, there will be no procurement of modernized systems. This is clearly not the case in Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. While the Obama Administration has apparently shifted its views about the Russian threat, the actual nuclear force modernization plans are essentially the same as those adopted in 2010–2011, a period in which the Obama Administration was in complete denial about the seriousness of the Russian nuclear threat… Moreover, planned U.S. modernization is distant and only partial.”

Generic medicine and branded drugs have similar side buy viagra cheapest effects. If a website doesn’t care about the viagra purchase uk privacy of its users, how can it be trusted? To counteract this effect (and bad reputation), make sure that a privacy statement is clearly defined when a newsletter signup form is present. This aphrodisiac is also well known for preventing numerous men from getting the medical attention order viagra viagra that they need. With homeopathy, all of the ingredients are diluted, so each india sildenafil ingredient in a homeopathic product has the letter “X” after it. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists outlines the specifics:

“Russia is modernizing its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear warheads. It currently has 4,500 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 1,780 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with roughly 2,000 nonstrategic warheads. Russia deploys an estimated 311 ICBMs that can carry approximately 1,050 warheads. It is in the process of retiring all Soviet-era ICBMs and replacing them with new systems, a project that according to Moscow is about halfway complete. The outgoing ICBMs will be replaced by the SS-27 Mod. 1 (Topol-M), the SS-27 Mod. 2, two follow-on versions of the SS-27 which are still in development, and a new liquid-fuel “heavy” ICBM. Following technical problems, the Russian Navy is also rolling out its new Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. “

Compare Moscow’s modernization program with the dismal condition of the U.S. deterrent, described by American Progress:  “Nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft, and warhead in the U.S. arsenal is nearing the end of its service life and must be replaced…these weapons systems are nearing retirement and must be replaced.”

A further complication has been caused by Moscow’s refusal to abide by long standing nuclear arms treaties, which Washington faithfully adheres to. Foreign Policy  worries that: “Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty. The White House was at best naïve to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit…The administration negotiated a new arms control treaty with the Russians before resolving the potential INF treaty violation. It is not clear why. Beyond that problem, cajoling the Russians to return to compliance with the INF treaty, even if possible, fails to get at the most important question: Why was Russia developing an INF treaty-prohibited nuclear weapon at the same time it was negotiating a new strategic nuclear arms treaty with the United States in 2009 and 2010? What did the Kremlin hope to gain militarily or strategically? …The Russian deception of negotiating a nuclear arms.”

The National Institute for Public Policy is concerned that, beyond numbers and modernization, an additional threat exists.  Unlike other nations, Russian military doctrine does not shy away from the use of atomic weaponry.

“While western leaders, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom continue to advocate policies supporting the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, Russia’s nuclear posture appears to be heading in the opposite direction…Russian military and civilian leaders increasingly brandish nuclear threats and declare nuclear weapons to be of growing importance to the Russian Federation.  Moreover, despite a roughly 80% drop in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and a cut of more than one-third in the U.K. nuclear stockpile since the end of the Cold War, Russia has made nuclear weapons the centerpiece of its military modernization program…Russia’s military doctrine places primacy on nuclear forces, including sanctioning their use preemptively against conventional threats…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Increased Minimum Wage Increases Unemployment

The debate over raising the minimum wage has become a significant factor in the presidential contest. The evidence indicates that, contrary to the claims of Senator Sanders and former Secretary of State Clinton, increasing pay for the lowest paying jobs will increase unemployment and harm the very people the concept purports to assist.

The concept that hiking the minimum wage will not cause increased unemployment was satirized recently by Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) when he asked his Democrat colleagues “If raising the minimum wage to $15 won’t hurt the economy or produce increased unemployment, why not raise it to $50 instead?”

The Mises Institute notes:

“The minimum wage is constantly sold as good for workers, or minorities or women. In truth, it hurts the most vulnerable and those its well-intentioned sponsors intend to help. A study by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither evaluated the effect of minimum wage increases on low-skilled workers during the recession and found that minimum wage increases between December 2006 and December 2012 … reduced the national employment-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points.” That amounts to about 1.4 million jobs. And more noteworthy, that ‘… binding minimum wage increases significantly reduced the likelihood that low-skilled workers rose to what we characterize as lower middle class earnings.’

“Yes, it’s hard to make ends meet with a minimum wage job and such jobs certainly aren’t enviable. That being said, cutting out the bottom rung from people just makes it all the harder to get by. A bad job is better than no job and it is often the first step to something better.”

One reason raising minimum wage causes unemployment is that it increases the viability of automating positions. The Brookings Institute reports:

“The movement pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage has succeeded in several large cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. These minimum wage increases coincide with falling prices for computers that can replace human labor in some low-skill jobs. A higher minimum wage changes cost considerations for businesses seeking to automate more of their operations. Increasingly, low-skill workers will not only have to compete with each other for jobs at higher wages, but also with computers. Staying competitive in a changing job market will require workers to specialize in tasks that computers cannot easily perform.”

In a study on the impact on increasing the minimum in New York State, the Empire Center  found:
Many men choose to take over-the-counter vitamin supplements to load up on all viagra lowest price the nutrients their body needs. This in generic professional viagra turn, triggers the enzyme, Guanylate Cyclase. Psychogenic erectile dysfunction occurs suddenly and unexpectedly, literally overnight, when everything brand viagra cheap was going as it should. Impotency is also known as male sexual weakness or erectile get levitra dysfunction is a very common problem in men and taking the help of natural cure to treat sexual weakness in men.
“Advocates of such a policy believe that low-income workers will be its primary beneficiaries…the poorest New Yorkers would have the most to lose from a sharp rise in the government-mandated wage floor. The authors, economists Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Ben Gitis of the American Action Forum, draw on three credible research models to estimate low, medium and high impacts from raising the statewide minimum wage to $12 or $15.

“The key finding: a $15 minimum wage ultimately would cost the state at least 200,000 jobs, with proportionately larger employment decreases in upstate regions. That’s the authors’ “low-impact” scenario, based on a model developed by the Congressional Budget Office, of which Holtz-Eakin is a former director.

“The other two models point to even bigger losses, indicating that a $15 an hour minimum wage would lead to 432,200 and 588,000 fewer jobs under the “medium impact” and “high impact” scenarios, respectively.

“Job losses would be smaller, but still more than New Yorkers should be willing to tolerate, if the state was to set the minimum at $12 an hour, according to Holtz-Eakin and Gitis.

“Based on national labor force data, the authors of this paper estimate less than 7 percent of the wages generated by a $15 wage, and less than 6 percent of the wages generated by a $12 wage, would actually go to households in poverty.”

The Employment Policies Institute verifies that study on a national level:

“An overwhelming majority of American labor economists agree that minimum wage hikes are an inefficient way to address the needs of poor families, according to a new national survey of the American Economic Association (AEA). The survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and sponsored by the Employment Policies Institute. Over 73 percent of AEA labor economists believe that a significant increase will lead to employment losses and 68 percent think these employment losses fall disproportionately on the least-skilled. Only 6 percent feel that minimum wage hikes are an efficient way to alleviate poverty.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

NASA Seeks to Protect Earth from Asteroid Impacts

NASA is taking steps to deal with the ultimate global disaster, a holocaust that could occur anytime from a few weeks to a few thousand years from now, but which has a significant probability of happening and that, in the distant past, already caused the mass extinction of planetary life, ending the reign of the dinosaurs.

The U.S. space agency is implementing an Asteroid Grand Challenge, designed to accelerate NASA’s efforts to locate potentially hazardous asteroids through non-traditional collaborations and partnerships. Part of the program will be to explore ways in which potentially hazardous asteroids could be deflected away from Earth.

NASA’s JPL facility  has announced that it “has formalized its ongoing program for detecting and tracking near-Earth objects (NEOs) as the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO). … [It] will also take a leading role in coordinating interagency and intergovernmental efforts in response to any potential impact threats.”

NASA reports that more than 13,500 near-Earth objects of all sizes have been discovered to date — more than 95 percent of them since NASA-funded surveys began in 1998. About 1,500 NEOs are now detected each year.

According to John Grunesfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, “Asteroid detection, tracking and defense of our planet is something that NASA, its interagency partners, and the global community take very seriously. While there are no known impact threats at this time, the 2013 Chelyabinsk super-fireball and the recent ‘Halloween Asteroid’ close approach remind us of why we need to remain vigilant and keep our eyes to the sky. NASA has been engaged in worldwide planning for planetary defense for some time, and this office will improve and expand on those efforts, working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies and departments.

“With more than 90 percent of NEOs larger than 3,000 feet (1 kilometer) already discovered, NASA is now focused on finding objects that are slightly bigger than a football field — 450 feet (140 meters) or larger. In 2005, NASA was tasked with finding 90 percent of this class of NEOs by the end of 2020. NASA-funded surveys have detected an estimated 25 percent of these mid-sized but still potentially hazardous objects to date.

How to boost erection size and erection quality naturally to penetrate deeper into her genital passage and cialis uk no prescription last longer in bed and satisfy her with mind-blowing sexual pleasure. Psychological issues include prolonged cialis prices stress, long-term depression, anticipatory anxiety, and relationship issues. The majority of men are not comfortable with the lack of long-term use data (i.e., the product was first approved and released to the public, it has viagra online no prescriptions gotten the attention of the general public. That’s why doctor prescribe muscle relaxants such as Baclofen that significantly improve viagra on line australia the recovery process and make it much easier to lead a healthy erotic life and make it altogether more fun and enjoyable with female libido enhancement strategies, every woman can now achieve her fullest sexual potential. “NASA’s long-term planetary defense goals include developing technology and techniques for deflecting or redirecting objects that are determined to be on an impact course with Earth. NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission concept would demonstrate the effectiveness of the gravity tractor method of planetary defense, using the mass of another object to pull an asteroid slightly from its original orbital path. The joint NASA-European Space Agency Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission concept, if pursued, would demonstrate an impact deflection method of planetary defense.

“Even if intervention is not possible, NASA would provide expert input to FEMA about impact timing, location and effects to inform emergency response operations. In turn, FEMA would handle the preparations and response planning related to the consequences of atmospheric entry or impact to U.S. communities.”

A space agency “asteroid initiative” study concluded that the “Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC)… is seeking the best ideas to find all asteroid threats to human populations, and to accelerate the work that NASA is already doing for planetary defense. The Asteroid Initiative will leverage and integrate NASA’s activities in human exploration, space technology, and space science to advance the technologies and capabilities needed for future human and robotic exploration, to enable the first human mission to interact with asteroid material, and to accelerate efforts to detect, track, characterize, and mitigate the threat of potentially hazardous asteroids.”

Similar to spectacular science fiction films about asteroid threats, a NASA attempt to deflect a menacing object would involve a human crew. The AGC study outlined “concepts for extra-vehicular activity (EVA) systems, such as space suits, tools, and translation aids that will allow astronauts to explore the surface of a captured asteroid, prospect for resources, and collect samples.”

Unfortunately, NASA’s plans for manned space flights continue to be pushed further into the future.  President Obama prematurely ended the Space Shuttle program, then cancelled its successor, the Constellation.  The newest version, the Orion spacecraft, essentially an updated and enlarged Apollo-era vehicle, will not take astronauts into space until 2023.

NASA’s limited budget has concentrated attention on the White House’s environmental issues rather than the space agency’s original human exploratory mission.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Economy stagnates in debt and regulation

It’s already known that America’s 2016 national debt has surpassed the $19 trillion mark under President Obama, a dramatic increase from the debt accumulated over 233 years which at stood $10.6 trillion when he took office.

The hike has been startling, but even more so when one considers that nothing of significance or lasting value has been added to the U.S. with all that expenditure. Other periods of heavy spending resulted in clearly visible results.  During the 1940’s, extensive outlays produced a victory in the Second World War.  The 1950’s saw the development of the U.S. highway system. President Reagan’s arms buildup in the 1980’s ended the first Cold War.

Even in comparison with the anemic growth that has become common since Mr. Obama assumed office, the state and outlook of the economy as 2016 moves into February is worrisome. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics release on Jobs indicates that job growth, in particular, remains disappointing.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis  notes that real gross domestic product — the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes – barely edged up at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, a reduction from the very weak third quarter increase of 2%.

CNS News reports that the huge jump in the national debt represents a liability of $70,612.91 for every U.S. household

The first evidence of an extremely expensive and utterly failed economic policy came from the $830 billion dollar “stimulus,” passed early in the Obama Administration’s reign, which tripled the yearly annual deficit.

The Wall Street Journal summarized it this way: “The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college ‘hookups.’

“In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% — pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.

“The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes.”

In addition to skyrocketing debt with no substantive return, the nature of the once robust American economy seems to have been altered. The Heritage Foundation notes that “America’s Economic Freedom Has Rapidly Declined Under Obama, largely due to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts.”

Heritage’s annual 2016 Index of Economic Freedom reveals that “America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016.” In addition to the enormous new debt, the huge impact of new regulations and healthcare takeover are cited as reasons.

Heritage worries that “This is not something to take lightly. Economic freedom is the foundation of U.S. economic strength, and economic strength is the foundation of America’s high living standards, military power, and status as a world leader. The perils of losing economic freedom are not fictional. It is painfully clear that our economy has been performing far below its potential, with individuals, families, and entrepreneurs being squeezed by the proliferation of big-government bureaucracy and regulations…Self-inflicted wounds include:

  • The S. has the highest corporate tax ratein the developed world. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and has meant fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans.
  • The overall annual costof meeting regulatory requirements has increased by over $80 billion since 2009, with more than 180 new regulations in place. In terms of ease of starting a new business, analyzed by a recently published World Bank report, the U.S. is ranked shockingly low at 49th, trailing countries such as Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Malaysia. No wonder the labor force participation rate has remained at near record lows after more than five years of steady decline.

Not wholesale viagra only does it helps you with your sperm count as well and increases your testosterone level, enhances frequency of orgasm and last but not the least arouses your sex drive along with desire. Men looking for pleasurable lovemaking every night with their lovable tadalafil cheapest price female partners. Due cialis tablets 100mg to unnecessary or unhealthy weight, the vessels are blocked with some plaques on the walls. Transparency and understanding are the two things which maintain bond http://www.devensec.com/planning-docs.html cialis no prescription in a relationship.
In the past, major global recessions were healed by the dynamic strength of the U.S. economy. However, eight years after the “Great Recession,” America’s failure to unleash the potential of its free market has not provided that boost.  The World Bank notes that “Global growth disappointed again in 2015, slowing to 2.4%. “

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand

There are two vital aspects to North Korea’s launch of a rocket several days ago,  an internationally prohibited test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, that are not being talked about.

There is little doubt that North Korea is a dangerously unhinged regime, whose leader frequently discuss attacking the United States, South Korea and Japan. Clearly, now armed with an ICBM and nuclear weapons, that danger is a magnitude greater than ever before.

Keep in mind that the Pyongyang government doesn’t have to actually attack those nations to benefit from its atomic and missile prowess.  All it has to do is threaten to do so.

In 1994, President Clinton gave $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea in return for that nation’s pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.  In essence, it was precisely the same type of deal that President Obama gave to Iran.  Clearly, President Clinton’s approach was a complete, total failure.  Over a decade later, within months of cementing a deal with Iran providing that nation with $150 billion in unfrozen assets, Tehran has also violated its deal by firing off a prohibited missile. Note that Iran will be free from any restrictions on nuclear weapons within less than a decade.

The mistakes made by the Clinton and Obama administrations are identical.  Clearly, no lesson was learned.

But that’s only the first of two deadly mistakes regarding the proliferation of nuclear arms and ICBMs that the Obama Administration has made.

With two regimes, Iran and North Korea, that both openly discuss their hatred of the U.S. and their desire for our destruction, minimal prudence dictates that adequate defenses be emplaced against both the threat of attack or an actual attack. Unfortunately, that act of rational caution is one which President Obama has vehemently and consistently opposed, leaving the U.S. extremely and unnecessarily vulnerable to an atomic assault by North Korea, Iran, or any other antagonist.  The rapid and vast upgrading of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals, at the same time that America’s deterrent has been allowed to age into unreliability, is also a threat President Obama has chosen to ignore.

President Obama has been consistent throughout his career in opposing defenses against a nuclear attack.

He has consistently opposed America’s development of a missile defense system. His February 2008 campaign ad stated:

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending…. I will not develop new nuclear weapons…”
Shakti Prash an unadulterated ayurvedic treatment contains every common fixing with no conceivable side effects.After year of innovative work by our ayurvedic speindia generic tadalafil ts and researcher we have created Shakti Prash, which is a certain amino acid in the body that is going to be related with a number of several body functions. It is a kind of buy tadalafil cipla chronic inflammatory disease. These buy levitra no prescription are a few excellent benefits of Kamagra drug. Their services are fast, http://downtownsault.org/island-books-crafts-expands-to-fill-gap-created-by-book-world/ buying generic cialis customer friendly and open for 24×7.
He certainly lived up to his promise.

In 2009, President Obama abandoned an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place antiballistic missile facilities within those two nations.

The Obama Administration also decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. Intense pressure forced him to reversing its decision. The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity. Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President is committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

Despite a growing threat, the White House announced the termination of key parts of the ABM program. The President’s has an ongoing reluctance to provide appropriate funding for other missile defense needs as well.

There have curious acts in which Mr. Obama has sought to mollify critics of his stance on missile defense by saying one thing and doing another. In 2013, he agreed to deploy missile defense ships to Asia, but later failed to request funding for them. Indeed, in his 2014 budget, he again sought to reduce funding for anti-ballistic missile programs.

And then, of course, there is the infamous whisper incident.

In 2012, at a meeting in South Korea, the President, not realizing his microphone was on, whispered to Russia’s then-president Medvedev that he would further slash America’s missile defenses after his re-election.  Apparently, he trusted the Russian government more than the American people.

Thanks to Mr. Obama’s irrational and incautious opposition to missile defense, despite a clear, present and immediate threat, the American people are in serious jeopardy. It is an act of Chief Executive incompetence unmatched in U.S. history, which may lead to devastating consequences.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean Axis Recognized

A  Russian news agency has openly discussed a dangerous international reality that the New York Analysis of Policy & Government has written about for several years, and which the White House and other isolationists have apparently ignored.

Russia, Iran, China and North Korea have formed an axis that is more powerful and dangerous than any other alliance ever formed—and that includes NATO.  It puts what used to be called the Free World in imminent peril.

According to Russia’s Sputnik news agency, “ Cooperation between Russia, Iran and China might signal a  formation of a new world paradigm, able to re-define the global situation in the world both politically and strategically; the recent developments in the relations between the three might be more significant than many realize…” Sputnik referred to comments by journalist Carol Gould on an Iranian TV program as a springboard for the candid comments.

Sputnik noted that “Xi Jinping [China’s leader] was the first international leader to head to Iran after the trade restrictions were removed and capped his visit with 17 agreements for cooperation in areas including energy, trade, and industry. The two countries also agreed to increase bilateral trade more than 10-fold to $600 billion in the next decade. In addition, Xi Jinping signed a joint statement with President Hassan Rouhani in support of Iran’s application for full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), advocated by both Russia and China.”

While Gould believes that the Russia-China-Iran axis is economically oriented, the facts speak otherwise. Russia has engaged in global military training maneuvers with China, and has supplied Iran with advanced military technology.  Beijing, which wholly finances North Korea’s existence, has refused to use its influence to limit Pyongyang’s growing nuclear and missile technology.

That refusal has become a topic within the U.S. presidential contest. Candidate Donald Trump has suggested that unless Beijing uses its overwhelming influence to reign in Pyongyang’s atomic program, Washington should impose trade restrictions on China.

Relations between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are solidly grounded in the mutual interests of the four nations.  Each wishes to reduce or eliminate western, particularly American, influence across the planet. Russia has extensive global experience and advanced weapons technology that its axis partners crave. China’s economy provides the funding. Iran provides entrée into the strategically vital Middle East, and gets the protection and weapons technology it seeks in return. North Korea depends on China for its very existence, and uses its outsized military muscle (its army is larger than that of the United States) to keep Japan and South Korea off balance.
According to the biological process of the body, increased nitric oxide secretion dilates the blood vessels and relaxes penile muscles to viagra properien improve blood flow near regenerative area. Person Lifestyle & Emotional concerns To sustain viagra shop an enough erection, a man need to be happy and must keep charming mind. Parents should keep it away from children and pets. viagra 25mg If you see this in http://greyandgrey.com/1750-2/ purchase generic cialis your man for having a general health checkup and support him.
Open belligerence against the United States is become increasingly apparent.

Despite the reduction in U.S. defense spending and the largely pacifist foreign policy of the Obama Administration, Russia, China and Iran continue to portray the U.S. as an aggressive power.

In Europe, Despite the shrinking U.S. military, the withdrawal of most American tanks, NATO’s  undersized spending, and Moscow’s ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons in the region, Russia continues to prepare for combat.

Moscow’s new National Security Strategy Emphasizes cooperation with China, among others.

According to a review by the Center for Strategic and International Studies   “This strategy asserts that the U.S. and its allies are seeking to contain Russia in order to maintain their dominance of world affairs, which Russia’s independent foreign policy challenges. … The strategy also makes the somewhat puzzling assertion of the spread of U.S. “military-biological” labs near Russia’s borders. This most likely refers to a number of cooperative biological defense facilities set up with the governments of Georgia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, which some in Russia have viewed as a means to continue the development of biological weaponry, under cover of efforts to seek antidotes and defenses. The inclusion of this new “threat” in the doctrine may be an effort to lay the groundwork for countering U.S. accusations of Russian violations of other treaties, notably the INF treaty, with counter-accusations of its own.”

China continues to dramatically expand its military, adding cutting-edge technological weapons and rapidly closing in on its goal of becoming the world’s largest Navy by 2020.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A candid discussion on American socialism

Do progressive policies actually accomplish solid results?

As several presidential candidates ask Americans to seriously consider an openly progressive agenda, it is appropriate to examine how that concept has fared in actual practice. The goals of the hard left are in line with President Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform” America.

Throughout most of its history, the United States has experienced unprecedented economic growth and mobility though an essentially capitalist philosophy. Market conditions which encouraged growth and entrepreneurship allowed vast numbers of Americans to advance economically into the middle class and beyond.

As a possible reaction to the poor results of the Obama presidency, free-market advocates or conservatives have, according to the Gallup polling organization, outnumbered both moderates and liberals since 2009.

However, as presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has openly identified himself as a socialist, and his Democrat opponents Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have for the most part agreed with his policies in an attempt to solidify their support with the left wing of their party, the question of “fundamentally transforming” America from a free market to a progressive/socialist economy has risen to the forefront.

The progressive concept, which is essentially been the mantra of the currently ascendant left wing of the Democrat party.

Progressive policies can be distinguished from other programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are essentially funds taken from individual paychecks then returned to the taxpayers at a later date when eligibility sets in. Progressive policies center on the concept of “redistributing” wealth from those who have earned or produced it to those who have not.

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once remarked that ““The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

As Geroge Will “America’s national character will have to be changed if progressives are going to implement their agenda…consider the data Nicholas Eberstadt deploys in National Affairs quarterly: America’s welfare state transfers more than 14 percent of GDP to recipients, with more than a third of Americans taking ‘need-based’ payments. In our wealthy society, the government officially treats an unprecedented portion of the population as ‘needy.’ Transfers of benefits to individuals through social-welfare programs have increased from less than one federal dollar in four (24 percent) in 1963 to almost three out of five (59 percent) in 2013. In that half-century, entitlement payments were, Eberstadt says, America’s ‘fastest growing source of personal income,’ growing twice as fast as all other real per-capita personal income. It is probable that this year, a majority of Americans will seek and receive payments. This is not primarily because of Social Security and Medicare transfers to an aging population. Rather, the growth is overwhelmingly in means-tested entitlements. More than twice as many households receive ‘anti-poverty’ benefits than receive Social Security or Medicare.”

It is appropriate to note that as those entitlement programs have soared, including a 41% in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (food stamps) social security benefits for seniors have suffered, enduring the lowest amount of cost of living increases on record. Indeed, the social security program itself is facing bankruptcy, since funds that should have gone to insure its solvency have been diverted to progressive programs.

A study of American cities and states where progressive concepts have been used provides an important glimpse into what results the growing trend towards socialist government can be expected to yield.

Men that have complete injuries are less likely for having psychogenic penile erection issues. viagra buy in usa pdxcommercial.com Anyone with an understanding of how levitra price to prepare bread and butter can make the herbal cures easily by themselves. Chinese herbal medicine can take advantage of conditioning the body, and this is easily provable if you cialis sample just look at the army. Medical devices are becoming smaller, more portable sildenafil 10mg and faster. The Brookings Institute examined large U.S. Cities, and found that 90% of the most unequal cities have Democrat mayors, and have had them for extended periods of time.

Newt Gingrich, quoted in Front Page , has noted that “Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they’re not willing to admit and the fact is it’s the poor who suffer from bad government.” Since 2013, of the large American cities with significant poverty rates, only Miami has had any experience with non-Democrats hands.

A study by United Way, “Struggling to Get By,” takes a hard look at how progressive policies have fared in California.  Among the key findings:

“One in three California families lacks income adequate to meet their basic needs.  One in three California households (31%) do not have sufficient income to meet their basic costs of living. This is nearly three times the number officially considered poor according to the Federal Poverty Level. Families falling below the Real Cost Measure reflect California’s diversity. One in five (20%) struggling households are white, so while poverty is often portrayed in our media and culture as primarily a problem for minorities, the reality is that families of all ethnicities struggle.”

By contrast, notes the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) “States that have adopted pro-growth policies have generally witnessed their economies grow, offering greater wage growth and more opportunities for citizens. Yet, despite years of empirical evidence supporting free market policies, some states choose a different path. …

“The empirical evidence and analysis … makes clear which policies lead to greater levels of opportunity and which policies are obstacles to growth. … This … concludes that pro-growth tax policy, that avoids picking winners and losers, provides a fair and competitive environment for all hardworking taxpayers. There are many policy obstacles that lawmakers face when trying to create a competitive economic environment… tools include lowering or eliminating the corporate and personal income taxes, reducing overall tax burdens, reducing or eliminating state death taxes, simplifying tax codes and supporting worker freedom. State policymakers [must] fix their budgets and address long-term pension liabilities.

“Generally, [ALEC’s latest] rankings show that [free market-oriented states]Utah, Wyoming, North Carolina, Florida and Texas are economic hotspots for growth. Furthermore, many of the no income tax states such as Nevada and South Dakota are also economically promising. On the other hand, most states in the Northeast and some states in the Rust Belt are facing economic decline. In the Rust Belt, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin deserve major credit for positive pro-growth reforms they have recently enacted after decades of poor policy choices. Additionally, Minnesota and Illinois both face significant fiscal challenges. the Northeast are even worse.”

Internationally, socialism has harmed the prosperity of the nations and peoples who have adopted it. The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) notes: “Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.”

The latest example is Greece. Jake Novak, writing for CNBC  eports “while Greece’s epic debt problems have dominated the news, I haven’t heard very much about who is to blame for what’s happened in that country. When any bank or other capitalist entity fails, the news media and the general public seem to name their favorite specific villains almost instantly. The word “profit” becomes dirty somehow and public figures start pining away for a more giving society that never was. But where is the condemnation of socialism and the failed politicians who peddled a proven failure of a system not only to the Greeks but to the half billion people who live in the E.U.? Where is the recognition that when the Greeks recently elected an even more leftist and socialist government, it sped up the path to collapse?”

The problems are not limited to the Old World.  In contrast to the largely capitalist USA, Latin America economies have been far more government-centered. Despite the inherent wealth of resources, many nations in Latin America fail to prosper. Daniel Wagner and CJ Post, writing in Huffington point out that “Even when times have been good, Latin America’s socialist countries have still failed to deliver meaningful political and economic reforms or effective public spending programs.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Global Threats Continue to Rise

The New York Analysis continues with its review of the vital study by the Congressional Research Service on the military challenges facing the United States.  The report, which directly contradicts President Obama’s assertion that America is safe and strong, examined evidence that overwhelmingly points to an era of exceptional, indeed, unprecedented danger facing both the U.S. and its allies across the globe.

The June 2015 National Military Strategy released by the Department of Defense (DOD) states: Since the last National Military Strategy was published in 2011, global disorder has significantly increased while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode. We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and transregional networks of sub-state groups—all taking advantage of rapid technological change. Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. They will have increasing implications to the U.S. homeland….

Complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment, driven by globalization, the diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts…. Despite these changes, states remain the international system’s dominant actors. They are preeminent in their capability to harness power, focus human endeavors, and provide security.

Most states today — led by the United States, its allies, and partners — support the established institutions and processes dedicated to preventing conflict, respecting sovereignty, and furthering human rights. Some states, however, are attempting to revise key aspects of the international order and are acting in a manner that threatens our national security interests…Russia … has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals. Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms, including the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, Russia-NATO Founding Act, Budapest Memorandum, and the IntermediateRange Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Iran also poses strategic challenges to the international community. It is pursuing nuclear and missile delivery technologies despite repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease such efforts. It is a state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Iran’s actions have destabilized the region and brought misery to countless people while denying the Iranian people the prospect of a prosperous future.

North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies also contradicts repeated demands by the international community to cease such efforts. These capabilities directly threaten its neighbors, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan. In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland as well. North Korea also has conducted cyber attacks, including causing major damage to a U.S. corporation…

China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region. For example, its claims to nearly the entire South China Sea are inconsistent with international law. The international community continues to call on China to settle such issues cooperatively and without coercion. China has responded with aggressive land reclamation efforts that will allow it to position military forces astride vital international sea lanes…For the past decade, our military campaigns primarily have consisted of operations against violent extremist networks. But today, and into the foreseeable future, we must pay greater attention to challenges posed by state actors. They increasingly have the capability to contest regional freedom of movement and threaten our homeland. Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles, precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber capabilities, and weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. and NATO Military Capabilities in Europe

Russia’s seizure and annexation of Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe have led to a renewed focus among policymakers on U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe…. In December 2014, Russia issued a new military doctrine that, among other things, calls for a more assertive approach toward NATO. In June 2015, Russia stated that it would respond to the placement of additional U.S. military equipment in Eastern Europe by deploying additional forces along its own western border…

New Forms of Aggression and Assertiveness

They take initiative viagra sans prescription in comprehending the illness and its severity that may differ from person to person. We all know that people who are levitra properien affected by ED. This improved stamina makes him able to have viagra online in kanada more sexual confident for rocking the game. cialis buy india Size gain results are natural and permanent. Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea, as well as subsequent Russian actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have already led to a renewed focus among policymakers on how to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare or ambiguous warfare tactics.

China’s actions in the East and South China Seas have prompted a focus among policymakers on how to counter China’s so-called salami-slicing tactics in those areas.

Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence

Russia’s reassertion of its status as a major world power has included, among other things, references by Russian officials to nuclear weapons and Russia’s status as a major nuclear weapon power. This has led to an increased emphasis in discussions of U.S. defense and security on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence…

Maintaining Technological Superiority in Conventional Weapons

DOD officials have expressed concern that the technological and qualitative edge that U.S. military forces have had relative to the military forces of other countries is being narrowed by improving military capabilities in other countries, particularly China and (in some respects) Russia. To arrest and reverse the decline in the U.S. technological and qualitative edge…

Defense Acquisition Policy

DOD officials and other observers have argued that staying ahead of improving military capabilities in countries such as China in coming years will require adjusting U.S. defense acquisition policy to place a greater emphasis on speed of development, experimentation, risk-taking, and tolerance of failure during development.

Reliance on Components and Materials from Russia and China

Increased tensions with Russia have led to an interest in eliminating instances of being dependent on Russian-made military systems and components for U.S. military systems. A current case in point concerns the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine, which is incorporated into U.S. space launch rockets, including rockets used by DOD to put military payloads into orbit. Concerns over Chinese cyber activities or potential Chinese actions to limit exports of certain materials (such as rare earth elements) might similarly lead to concerns over the use of certain Chinese-made components (such as electronic components) or Chinese-origin materials (such as rare earth elements) for U.S. military systems.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Greatest Threat to the USA

There can be little doubt (except, perhaps, in the White House) that terrorism poses an immediate, deadly, and significant threat to the safety of the American people. However, there is an even more dangerous peril facing the nation.

As previously noted by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, American defense policy remains trapped in a time warp assumption that the potential of massive scale, nation vs. nation warfare, including the use of extensive conventional forces as well as nuclear weapons ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, that assumption couldn’t be more incorrect. The extraordinary military buildup, and accompanying aggressiveness, of Russia and China, and the alliance of those two great powers together with Iran and North Korea pose perhaps the greatest threat to the United States since the British burned the White House during the 1812 War. The problem is magnified by the decline in American military power, which is both increasingly outdated, underfunded, and basically half the strength it possessed a quarter century ago

While the Executive Branch downplays the problem, Congressional researchers are documenting the challenge. A newly released study by the Congressional Research Service, “A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense,” addresses it. The New York Analysis has reviewed the documented, and excerpts key portions of it.  Our review concludes tomorrow.

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense

World events since late 2013 have led some observers to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the last 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different strategic situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition and challenges to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.

…Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea, as well as subsequent Russian actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have already led to a renewed focus among policymakers on U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe, and on how to counter Russia’s so-called hybrid warfare tactics.

China’s actions in the East and South China Seas have prompted a focus among policymakers on how to counter China’s so-called salami-slicing tactics in those areas.

A shift in the international security environment may also be generating implications for areas such as nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, maintaining technological superiority in conventional weapons, defense acquisition policy, submarines and antisubmarine warfare, and DOD reliance on Russian-made components.

Background Shift in International Security Environment:  Overview

The United States must come to grips with a new security environment as surging powers like Russia and China challenge American power, said Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work. “Great power competition has returned…Russia is now a resurgent great power and I would argue that its long term prospects are unclear. China is a rising great power. Well, that requires us to start thinking more globally and more in terms of competition than we have in the past 25 years… Both Russia and China are challenging the order that has been prevalent since the end of World War II…

The New Situation

Observers who conclude that the international security environment has shifted to a new strategic situation generally view the new period not as a bipolar situation (like the Cold War) or a unipolar situation (like the post-Cold War era), but as a multipolar situation characterized by renewed competition among three major world powers—the United States, China, and Russia. Other emerging characteristics of the new international security situation as viewed by these observers include the following:

  • renewed ideological competition, this time against 21st -century forms of authoritarianism in Russia, China, and other countries;
  • the promotion in China and Russia through their state-controlled media of nationalistic historical narratives emphasizing assertions of prior humiliation or victimization by Western powers, and the use of those narratives to support revanchist or irredentist foreign policy aims;
  • the use by Russia and China of new forms of aggressive or assertive military and paramilitary operations—called hybrid warfare or ambiguous warfare, among other terms, in the case of Russia’s actions, and called salami-slicing tactics or gray-zone warfare, among other terms, in the case of China’s actions—to gain greater degrees of control of areas on their peripheries;
  • challenges by Russia and China to key elements of the U.S.-led international order, including the principle that force or threat of force should not be used as a routine or first-resort measure for settling disputes between countries, and the principle of freedom of the seas (i.e., that the world’s oceans are to be treated as an international commons); and
  • additional features alongside those listed above, including:
  • continued regional security challenges from countries such as Iran and North Korea;
  • a continuation of the post-Cold War era’s focus (at least from a U.S. perspective) on countering transnational terrorist organizations that have emerged as significant non-state actors (now including the Islamic State organization, among other groups); and
  • weak or failed states, and resulting weakly governed or ungoverned areas that can contribute to the emergence of (or serve as base areas or sanctuaries for) non-state actors, and become potential locations of intervention by stronger states, including major powers.

The main objective of this course is to vary your viagra no prescription usa approach to doing business. deeprootsmag.org generic viagra for sale Leafy Green Veggies Spinach, beans, kale, celery, turnip are some of the green leafy veggies that increase the quantity of sperm within a man’s semen. As many think that sexual health illnesses are caused mostly by physical factors, it is a problem that has to be dealt with by using educated therapy, reading person-assist courses along with furthermore a cheap brand viagra superb previous discuss through one’s creator. Causes of weak erection in men include reduced purchase levitra online http://deeprootsmag.org/category/departments/native-american-news/?feedsort=rand blood supply to the male organ.

The Report Continues Tomorrow