Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

Flawed candidates, flawed parties

What does it say about the legal, cultural and political environment of America in the 21st century when the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land have at times openly ignored the law, and when one has zero experience in governance, and the other has a stunning record of total failure and duplicity during her time as part of a presidential administration?

While irrelevant issues have always had far too great an influence in presidential politics, the United States has apparently entered into an era where the race for the White House has a distinct resemblance to a Kardashian-like reality TV show.

Journalists seek access, so many have failed to openly confront either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on their obvious and significant shortcomings as a potential Commander in Chief.

Clinton has a record of ethical questionability and scandals extending back to her earliest days in government. Recently, her tenure as Secretary of State was marked by the “reset” with Russia, one of the most significant failures in American diplomacy. Her blatant mismanagement and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi attack are still under investigation, as is her apparent carelessness with state secrets evident in her use of a personal email server for official communications, including those considered top secret. Indeed, the Obama-Clinton record in Middle Eastern affairs as a whole is a study in amateurism, if not worse, in foreign affairs.

The worse may be yet to come, as questions about her approval of the sale of uranium to Moscow and another serious allegation of influence peddling have yet to be fully explored.

Ms. Clinton is apparently aware of the threat to her campaign from all of these issues, as she has vigorously avoided frank meetings with the media, and her allies in the Democratic National Committee do their best to delay debates with other party candidates.

Leading the GOP pack, Donald Trump scored high marks with fellow Republicans by discussing problems with China and illegal immigration that the party leadership, to its discredit, has failed to adequately address. But serious questions about his intentions remain unanswered. Why did he consult with Clinton before entering the race? He has bragged about his ties to the Clintons, and his current claim to allegiance to the GOP is belied by his extensive past contributions to Democrats.

His headline-making pejorative comments about women and Mexicans are a gift, intended or not, to the Clinton camp, underscoring an already underperforming relationship Republicans have with those two demographics. His refusal to rule out a third-party run that would make a Democrat victory far more likely is a serious threat. During the recent debate, his claims to have purchased influence through campaign contributions raises substantive ethical and legal questions.

The two campaigns say a great deal about the parties they operate within.

Republican voters have become increasingly enraged about their party leaders’ failure to stand up for the principles the GOP purports to stand for. Even after gaining control of both houses of Congress, Republicans have failed to exercise power in any meaningful way. A key constituency within the GOP, the Tea Party, complains that organizational chiefs have been more confrontational with them than with the White House.

That anger has become incendiary, leading another presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, to white-hot criticisms of Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Despite Cruz’s revolt, Trump has been the beneficiary of the growing split between the party faithful and GOP leadership.

Ms. Clinton’s belief that she can avoid a great deal of the expected contact with the press, and Democrat leadership’s failure to distance itself from her history of misdeeds and policy failures, points to a party with a lackluster bullpen of candidates and a hidebound adherence to dogmas that have only worsened the challenges America faces at home and abroad. The fact that Bernie Sanders, a curmudgeonly old-school socialist who is not even a registered Democrat is closing in on Ms. Clinton describes much about the state of the party.

Beyond all the descriptions (or criticisms) of character and career histories, the two candidates have gained popularity based on their message. For disgruntled Republicans, the lack of attention by party leaders to illegal immigration and the rise of China, issues Trump has concentrated on, have driven many to support him. Hillary Clinton’s role as a standard bearer for various victimization groups, her hard-left positions, and her connection to the original (Bill) Clinton administration loom large.

As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen whether the flaws in both candidates overcome their roles as symbols for the causes and issues they headline.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia, NATO return to Cold War

As Russia continues its expanded military flights along the borders of European nations, and moves forward with its extensive military buildup (including the stationing of intermediate range nuclear missiles, part of the Kremlin’s 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weaponry, within reach of European targets) the tension between Moscow and NATO has returned to Cold War levels. That tension reached a fever pitch following the invasion of Ukraine.

According to the U.S. State Department’s “2015 Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments:”

“…in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.

According to the Russian news source, Pravada, Mikhail Alexandrov, a leading expert of military-political studies, has asserted that “NATO’s objective is to suppress the Russians…In general, NATO’s activities are anti-Russian in their nature. “They hate the Russian and want to crush them. This is the essence of the current policy of NATO…Russia must be tough and strong in defending its interests on the international arena. If Russia makes concessions to the West, everyone will realize that Russia is weak an can therefore be destroyed.

Recently, that view of NATO was essentially repeated in a statement to RT news (another Russian news  source) by the Russian Foreign Ministry,  which alleged that NATO was seeking “dominance in Europe.”

NATO has responded with the following fact sheet:

Myth 1: NATO is trying to encircle Russia Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. Russia shares land borders with 14 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea). Only five of them are NATO members, while two more aspire to join. Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat. NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.

Myth 2: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia Fact: Since the early 1990s, the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest. NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here). In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). They reaffirmed their commitment to the Founding Act at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010 (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here, the Lisbon NRC Summit Declaration here.) Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. We set out to build a unique relationship with Russia, one built not just on mutual interests but also on cooperation and the shared objective for a Europe whole free and at peace. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship, nor a similar comprehensive institutional framework.

Myth 3: NATO missile defence targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it Fact: NATO’s missile defence system is not designed or directed against Russia. It does not pose a threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent. As already explained by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, geography and physics make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental missiles from NATO sites in Romania or Poland.  Their capabilities are too limited, their planned numbers May 2015 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet too few, and their locations too far south or too close to Russia to do so. Russian officials have confirmed that the planned NATO shield will not, in fact, undermine Russia’s deterrent. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s missile defence envoy, said on January 26, 2015, that “neither the current, nor even the projected” missile defence system “could stop or cast doubt on Russia’s strategic missile potential.” Finally, the Russian claim that the framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme obviates the need for NATO missile defence is wrong on two counts. The Iranian agreement does not cover the proliferation of ballistic-missile technology which is an issue completely different from nuclear questions. Furthermore, NATO has repeatedly made clear that missile defence is not about any one country, but about the threat posed by proliferation more generally. In fact, over 30 countries have obtained, or are trying to obtain, ballistic missile technology. The Iran framework agreement does not change those facts.

Myth 4: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia Fact: Every nation has the right to conduct exercises, as long as they do so within their international obligations, including notifying the actual numbers and providing observation opportunities when required. In order to promote mutual trust and transparency, OSCE members are bound by the Vienna Document to inform one another in advance of exercises which include more than 9,000 troops, unless the exercises are snap tests of readiness. NATO and Allies have consistently stood by the terms and the spirit of the Vienna Document. Those exercises which crossed the notification threshold were announced well in advance. This is why Russia could send observers to the UK-led Exercise Joint Warrior in April 2015. Russia, on the other hand, has repeatedly called snap exercises including tens of thousands of troops, with some of them taking place close to NATO territory. This practice of calling massive exercises without warning is a breach of the spirit of the Vienna Document, raising tension and undermining trust. This is especially the case because Russia’s military takeover of Crimea was masked by exactly such a snap exercise. It is therefore Russia’s exercises, not NATO’s, which are a threat to stability.

Myth 5: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim. Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance: therefore, no such promise can have been made. Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989. This was confirmed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility…”

Moscow’s moves have forced Sweden (which has found Russian subs in its waters) and Finland to consider joining NATO, according to Germany’s DW news  “The Crimean crisis has rekindled discussions in Sweden and Finland of whether to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which would protect the two countries in Europe’s north from potential Russian aggression. This comes after Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Jan Björklund had publicly called for a “doctrinal shift” in the country’s defence policy, reportedly saying he wanted Sweden to “set the wheels in motion” to join NATO.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. economy, unemployment rate continues to underperform

While the media and the Bureau of Labor Statistics  continue to cite the “U-3” statistic to indicate the unemployment rate (currently 5.3%) the more accurate and realistic number is the BLS’s U-6 number, currently at 10.4%.

Of that percentage, an increasingly worrisome subset—those who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more—increased from 2,121,000 in June to 2,180,000 in July. A seriously troubling indicator of an economy that continues to be in ill health is the record 93,770,000 Americans not participating in the workforce, a 38 year low point.

There is little indication that the situation is improving, since the U.S. economy continues to grow below levels necessary to improve the jobs picture. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)  reports that “Real gross domestic product — the value of the production of goods and services in the United States, adjusted for price changes — increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second quarter of 2015, according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.6 percent (revised).

The BEA also announced on August 5  bad news in U.S. export numbers:

“[The] goods and services deficit was $43.8 billion in June, up $2.9 billion from $40.9 billion in May, revised. June exports were $188.6 billion, $0.1 billion less than May exports. June imports were $232.4 billion, $2.8 billion more than May imports.

“The June increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $2.9 billion to $63.5 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of less than $0.1 billion to $19.7 billion.

“Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $1.6 billion, or 0.6 percent, from the same period in 2014. Exports decreased $33.4 billion or 2.9 percent. Imports decreased $31.8 billion or 2.2 percent.

“Goods and Services Three-Month Moving Averages:

“The average goods and services deficit decreased $2.2 billion to $41.8 billion for the three months ending in June.

* Average exports of goods and services increased $0.2 billion to $189.1 billion in June.

* Average imports of goods and services decreased $2.1 billion to $230.9 billion in June.

Year-over-year, the average goods and services deficit decreased $1.1 billion from the three months ending in June 2014.

* Average exports of goods and services decreased $6.8 billion from June 2014.

* Average imports of goods and services decreased $7.9 billion from June 2014.”

The jobs crisis is particularly acute for recent graduates, reports the Economic Policy Institute , even using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ less accurate U3:

  • “For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 7.2 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 14.9 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007).
  • “For young high school graduates, the unemployment rate is 19.5 percent (compared with 15.9 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 37.0 percent (compared with 26.8 percent in 2007).

  • “The high share of unemployed and underemployed young college graduates and the share of employed young college graduates working in jobs that do not require a college degree underscore that the current unemployment crisis among young workers did notarise because today’s young adults lack the right education or skills. Rather, it stems from weak demand for goods and services, which makes it unnecessary for employers to significantly ramp up hiring.

EPI also reports:

  • “Wages of young college and high school graduates are performing poorly—and are substantially lower today than in 2000. The real (inflation-adjusted) wages of young high school graduates are 5.5 percent lower today than in 2000, and the wages of young college graduates are 2.5 percent lower.
  • “The cost of higher education has grown far more rapidly than median family income, leaving students with little choice but to take out loans which, upon graduating into a labor market with limited job opportunities, they may not have the funds to repay.
    • “From the 1983–1984 enrollment year to the 2013–2014 enrollment year, the inflation-adjusted cost of a four-year education, including tuition, fees, and room and board, increased 125.7 percent for private school and 129.0 percent for public school (according to the College Board).
    • “Between 2004 and 2014, there was a 92 percent increase in the number of student loan borrowers and a 74 percent increase in average student loan balances (according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).
  • “Due to young college graduates’ limited job opportunities, stagnating wages, and the rising cost of higher education, college is becoming an increasingly difficult investment.”

The burden of severe levels of tuition-related debt makes the unemployment problem for college grads particularly troubling.

Categories
Quick Analysis

New EPA plan not based on solid science

On August 3, The Environmental Protection Agency released its new Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The central reason for the plan is to limit global warming, a concept considered “settled science” by its advocates, including the Obama Administration.

Far-ranging policies that will cost Americans a great deal have already been adopted in response to the global warming theory. Further, much of the policy action has been adopted by regulation, not legislation which would have allowed for far greater public debate and review.

The problem, of course, is that the theory of man-made global warming is neither settled science nor particularly accurate, given the numerous issues its proponents have completely failed to address.

31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

For thousands of years, far beyond the birth of modern industry and pollution-causing activities, the planet has alternately warmed and cooled, a result largely of solar activity.  The warming described by advocates of radical measures inspired by man-made global warming advocates warming is not consistent with prior periods of naturally occurring change. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski A world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer who has excavated ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his 50-year career, wrote in a 21st Century Tech article:

“Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. … Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His remarks were followed by more official statements from the National Science Board of the U.S. National Science Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.” In 1974, the board observed, “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”2No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon “sinful” human beings and their civilization— which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet…

“In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood.”

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.

Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes,  noted:

“The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

“Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.”

“The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economistmagazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.”

Alan Caruba, who passed away on June 16, 2015, wrote in Heartland  has also noted that some of the extremist scenarios portrayed by the global change advocates, (many of whom have built careers and personal fortunes from the concept) are thoroughly incorrect. Even if the scenario of warming did occur, the increase in C02, which they maintain would be the cause, would actually increase, not decrease vegetation throughout the planet.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, writing in Global Research concludes:

“Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The neglected Coast Guard

Even as the U.S. Coast Guard celebrates its 225th birthday, it endures the debilitating effects of budgetary neglect, with many vessels over half a century old.

The Coast Guard, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, traces its history to Aug. 4, 1790, when President George Washington approved  a law authorizing construction of 10 revenue cutters.

The organization’s $8.1 billion dollar budget is inadequate to its worldwide mission, which has become far more difficult as aggressive actions by foreign powers strain its resources to the limit. Those actions range from Russia’s militarization of the Arctic and countering the increasing amount of cyber attacks against the U. S., responsibilities which are in addition to the service’s duties to rescue those in distress at sea and stopping the importation of illegal drugs. The Coast Guard is the only entity charged with both military duties as well as civilian law enforcement.

Retired Rear Admiral Terry McKnight, writing for the United States Naval Institute  has called the Coast Guard the “Forgotten Fleet.”

“No other service does more with less than the Coast Guard… For a service that has some of the most demanding missions to support our national security, the current departmental funding falls well short of the requirement… Even though the Coast Guard has taken on more requirements in the post Sept. 11, 2001 era the consequences of sequestration have started to directly affect some of the basic mission requirements. Like the Navy, the Coast Guard’s fleet, will see a major reduction in the next few years and, if the trend is allowed to continue, this could jeopardize our national security. If the Coast Guard does not see an increase in its shipbuilding account, the fleet of high and medium endurance cutters will suffer a major decrease in the next ten years…”

Speaking to the National Press Club last week, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft noted that his service played a key role in countering the cyber assault on defense personnel. He also pointed out that the Coast Guard, due its limited resources, is only capable of responding to 10% of the information it obtains regarding drug smuggling.

However, it is the extraordinary expansion of Russian military activity in the Arctic that poses the greatest challenge to the Coast Guard. Ukrainian sources detailed Moscow’s new and ongoing activities in that region:

“Russia has announced it is deploying new radar stations and fighter aircraft on islands in the Arctic Ocean as Russia increases its presence on the frozen continent amid a simmering territorial dispute over the energy-rich region. Moscow announced back in 2008 that it would use the Arctic zone as a “strategic resource base“ for the development of Russia in the 21st century. Russia’s territorial claims encompass an area of roughly 1.2m sqkm which Moscow hopes would secure the rights to billions of tons of oil and gas. But Denmark, Canada and the US all dispute this and also each claim huge swathes of the vast continent, which is predicted to become ice-free in the coming decades.

Ukraine Today  reported in July that “The Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet has started forming a new air force and air defence system to protect the country’s interests in the Arctic.

A major portion of Russia’s increased presence is its fleet of icebreakers.  A 2013 study by the U.S. Naval Institute  noted that Russia had 37 icebreakers, plus four under construction. The U.S. totals was five, plus one under construction.

In his recent address to the National Press Club Admiral Zukunft stated that While the Coast Guard had seven ice breakers in 1977 when he entered the service, it currently has only two, “and only one of them, the 39-year-old Polar Star, is a “heavy” breaker capable of cracking through ice that is 21 feet thick. Russia, which he said is “militarizing the Arctic,” has some 20, with more under construction.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The ignored persecution of Christians

Information from nonpartisan organizations such as Amnesty International and Freedom House demonstrate that Christians across the globe are facing unprecedented levels of persecution. You wouldn’t, however, know that from listening to the United Nations or the White House.

Earlier this month, Knights of Columbus CEO announced “a new campaign to expose the crimes against humanity that are being committed… “It is time for a season of truth about what is happening to Christians and other minorities.”

According to Open Doors USA “While the year 2014 will go down in history for having the highest level of global persecution of Christians in the modern era, current conditions suggest the worst is yet to come. The Middle East Remains Most Violent While Africa Sees Largest Increase in Persecution of Christians… Topping the 2015 list for the 13th consecutive year is North Korea. Africa saw the most rapid growth of persecution, while the Middle East saw targeted attacks, resulting in a mass exodus of Christians… Approximately 100 million Christians are persecuted worldwide, making them one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world. Islamic extremism is the main source of persecution in 40 of the 50 countries on the 2015 World Watch List. While persecution can take many forms, Christians throughout the world risk imprisonment, torture, rape and even death as result of their faith.”

The Gatestone Institute  accuses the U.S. State Department of not taking the issue seriously. The organization quotes several key observers and examples:

  • “This is an administration which never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists … I hope that as it gets attention that Secretary Kerry will reverse it. If he doesn’t, Congress has to investigate, and the person who made this decision ought to be fired” — Newt Gingrich, former Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives.
  • “The U.S. insists that Muslims are the primary victims of Boko Haram… The question remains — why is the U.S. downplaying or denying the attacks against Christians?” — Emmanuel Ogebe, Nigerian human rights lawyer, Washington D.C.
  • During the height of one of the most brutal months of Muslim persecution of Christians, the U.S. State Department exposed its double standards against persecuted Christian minorities.
  • Sister Diana, an influential Iraqi Christian leader, who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012. She was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq — including Sunni, Shia and Yazidi, among others — to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every religious leader from this delegation to Washington D.C. was granted a visa — except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana. The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa. This is not the first time the U.S. State Department has not granted a visa to a Christian leader coming from a Muslim region. Last year, after the United States Institute for Peace brought together the governors of Nigeria’s mostly Muslim northern states for a conference in the U.S., the State Department blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, Jonah David Jang.


Pope Francis has stated “I tell you that today there are more martyrs than in the early times of the Church”, Pope Francis said. “Many of our brothers and sisters who bear witness to Jesus are persecuted for it. They are condemned for having a Bible. They cannot wear the sign of the Cross”.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why, and how, America changed

America traditionally has been a nation of great goals. Why does it currently appear in so substantial a decline?

It fought the mightiest empire on the planet to become a free country. It forged a unique constitution that provided more freedom than had ever existed in any land before. It fought one of the bloodiest wars in history at the time to rid itself of slavery. It opened an entire continent for settlement. It established an economy that provided unparalleled prosperity for the greatest number of its citizens than had ever been accomplished by any nation. It led the world in patents and inventions. Its culture tantalized and enriched the entire world. It put men on the moon. It defeated, without war, the Soviet nuclear superpower.

Since it was a nation comprised of humans, not demi-gods, it wasn’t perfect; nothing established by humans ever can be. But throughout its history, it sought to remedy its faults, and has done so in most areas.

Currently, however, it is difficult to discern what goals, dreams, hopes and ambitions exist for the American Republic. The language of many of its leaders dwells almost exclusively on criticizing their own country. Its Chief Executive seeks to reduce and withdraw American influence across the globe. Its military is decimated. It can no longer put humans in space. Its economy is weakened, mired in almost unimaginably large federal debt—and those dollars have purchased almost nothing. Indeed, the portion of that debt attributable to one program, President Obama’s “Stimulus” program, was a stunning $831 billion, and nothing significant or lasting was accomplished by it. The nation is mired in social welfare programs that produce no path out of poverty, but an ever increasing spiral of dependency and demands for more unearned benefits. The “can-do” spirit of the past was replaced with a “give me more!” concept.

In today’s America, President Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” and President Reagan’s belief that America’s best days are yet to come seem like the faintest of relics from a distant past.

What changed, and how did that change occur?

Much can be traced back to the turmoil of the 1960’s and 1970’s. A decade of assassinations, an unpopular war, a president resigning in disgrace, substantial drug problems, and the too-long delayed movement to finally end racial bias produced a crop of people who saw only the flaws in America, to the exclusion of its merits.  When these individuals failed to advance a nihilistic and anti-capitalist domestic agenda and pacifist foreign policy at the ballot box, they began, in the words of left wing extremists, the “long march through the institutions.”

The concept was originally spawned by Rudi Dutschke,  a German student activist who realized that the general public wouldn’t buy into his neo-Marxist vision. To overcome that, he advocated, as the U.K. publication the Telegraph  phrased it, a long-range strategy “to invade the areas of life that were most directly responsible for opinion-forming.” Rather than attempting violent revolution or unsuccessful political campaigns, its adherents moved into academia, the media, unions, and other alternative centers of influence.

That approach was combined with a tactic originated by Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. These individuals also realized that a direct approach through violence or elections would not work. They added to the “Long March” idea a strategy that sought to overwhelm the U.S. government by popularizing demands for utterly unaffordable increases in benefits.

Rudi Dutschke, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were the strategists, but it was Saul Alinsky who was the tactician who advanced their cause. Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” was the basic training manual for the practical implementation of the Dutschke-Cloward/Piven strategy. Among Alinsky’s fans is no less a luminary than Hillary Clinton.

This insidious movement took decades to mature, and was substantially delayed by the extraordinary successes of the Reagan Administration, which brought into sharp focus the failings of their guiding Marxist principles by producing a strong economy in the U.S. and brought down the Soviet Union abroad.

The election of Barack Obama came after generations had been taught by Dutschke-Cloward/Piven strategy disciples, and influenced by a media also predisposed to its tenets.  Breitbart,  citing a National Review study, describes the relationship to the current President:

“Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first ‘community organizers.’” That same column cites a photo that was on Obama’s presidential campaign website: a photo that showed “Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods.”

America’s decline is not a result of inevitable or overwhelming forces. It is the product of an intentional, carefully established strategy to “fundamentally transform,” as President Obama has stated, the very nature of the nation. This concept mandates the replacement of the original goals of individual rights and an optimistic and ambitious worldview by a collectivist, extremely powerful federal governmental structure at home that feels far more comfortable with similarly autocratic regimes abroad.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Department of Justice goes rogue…again

The latest objectionable action taken by the Justice Department brings legitimacy to the argument that this portion of the federal government has gone rogue.  Its questionable role in numerous scandals has raised the anger of both the public and Congress.

In a 68 page memorandum,  the Justice Department defied Congress and decided that independent inspectors general could be restricted from accessing certain types of information.

A statement released by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG),   noted: “As a result of the OLC’s [Office of Legal Counsel’s] opinion, the OIG will now need to obtain Justice Department permission in order to get access to important information in the Department’s files – putting the agency over which the OIG conducts oversight in the position of deciding whether to give the OIG access to the information necessary to conduct that oversight. The conflict with the principles enshrined in the Inspector General Act could not be clearer and, as a result, the OIG’s work will be adversely impacted. The OIG will immediately ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that the OIG has independent access to the information it needs for its work. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General have each expressed their commitment to join the OIG in this effort.

“Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz [chairman of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency] stated: ‘I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion. Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. Without such access, our Office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired, and it will be more difficult for us to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars. We look forward to working with the Congress and the Justice Department to promptly remedy this serious situation.”

 

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, as Congressional Democrats  joined with Republicans in criticizing the Justice Department’s decision. In a joint release, House Judiciary Committee members from both sides of the aisle stated: “The Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the Inspector General to access ‘all records’ in the Department’s possession.  However, today, the Office of Legal Counsel’s 58-page opinion argues that other provisions generally restricting the ‘disclosure’ of certain kinds of information override the specific instruction that the Inspector General have access to all records of the Department.  The Office of Legal Counsel reaches this conclusion despite clear and recent legislation enacted in response to the controversy over these very access issues.  Following several instances of the Inspector General testifying to Congress about the Justice Department hindering his oversight by withholding records, Congress enacted, and the President signed, Section 218 of the Department of Justice’s fiscal 2015 Appropriations Act.  That provision prohibited the use of any funds to deny the Inspector General timely access to records.  The only exception was for any ‘express’ limitation in the Inspector General Act.

“The Justice Department has denied or substantially delayed the Inspector General’s access to records in connection with a number of inquiries, including those related to: (1) whether the Department had violated the civil liberties and civil rights of individuals detained in national security investigations following September 11, (2) the review of Operation Fast and Furious, (3) the review of the FBI’s use of National Security and Exigent letters, (4) the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sex parties scandal, (5) the DEA’s use of confidential sources, and (6) the DEA’s use of administrative subpoenas to obtain bulk data collections.

“The Department’s refusal to provide records on a timely basis as required by law wastes months in bureaucratic roadblocks and frustrates the independent oversight Congress created Inspectors General to provide. Prior to 2010, the FBI and other agencies in the Justice Department routinely provided similar information to the Inspector General’s office.

“Here are comments from Conyers, Goodlatte, Grassley and Johnson: [Representing both Democrats and Republicans]

John Conyers:

‘This opinion is a departure from the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress when we drafted it—but this one memorandum hardly ends the conversation.  The Inspector General must have complete and direct access to the information that his office deems necessary to conduct complete and impartial investigations.  He should not have to ask permission from the very agency he oversees.  I suspect that we will work quickly, and likely with overwhelming and bipartisan majorities, to make certain that the Inspector General Act is explicit on this point.”

An Inspector General investigation can be prevented under the law in certain limited circumstances, but the Attorney General is required to explain in writing to both the Inspector General and Congress why the Inspector General’s work should be impeded despite the Inspector General Act’s guarantee of access to all agency records – something that the Attorney General has failed to do in each of the many instances records were withheld from the Inspector General since 2010…

“Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

[The] Office of Legal Counsel opinion contains the same kind of outcome-oriented lawyering that produced the Department of Justice’s infamous recess appointments memorandum, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014. The law is clear that the Office of the Inspector General should have unfettered access to materials for its investigations, but political lawyers at the Department of Justice have engaged in legal gymnastics to shield key information from government watchdogs.

“The Office of Legal Counsel’s efforts to reduce transparency will leave the Department of Justice vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct. This is not the type of government the American people deserve. The House Judiciary Committee will work with other committees of jurisdiction to explore a legislative fix to reiterate Congress’ intent that the Office of the Inspector General is entitled access to all documents and records within DOJ’s possession.

“Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee:

‘The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that Inspectors General have a right to access all records, documents and other materials.  If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.  The clear command of that law is being ignored far too often by agencies across the executive branch.  By this opinion’s tortured logic, ‘all records’ does not mean ‘all records,’ and Congress’s recent attempt to underscore our original intent with an appropriations restriction is nothing but a nullity. The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability, and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming.”

“Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee:

‘I am deeply concerned that this opinion undermines the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General’s independence, and ultimately the independence of all inspectors general, as other agencies will likely use its misguided arguments to justify stonewalling their own watchdogs.  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently reported out S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, which makes clear Congress’s view that inspectors general must be given prompt, unfettered access to agency documents for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the act.  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice today has dug further into its position — against the clear will of Congress — that the agency is not always obligated to provide documents to its inspector general, and that the agency itself gets to choose when to grant permission to access certain documents. I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure all inspectors general have the statutorily mandated independence from their agency that is so crucial to performing their responsibilities.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politics, profiteering interferes with move to stop illegal immigration

As the problems presented by illegal immigration continue become more greatly understood, battle lines continue to be drawn between those who seek to resolve the challenges posed by it, and those who seek to profit from the unlawful residents.

As always, politics plays a significant role in the conflict. According to the Rasmussen polling organization, a majority of Democrats believe illegals should be allowed to vote.

A May 2015 Rasmussen national telephone survey found “that one-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (35%) now believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote if they can prove they live in this country and pay taxes. Sixty percent (60%) disagree, while five percent (5%) are undecided.  Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.”

The reasons are obvious. New arrivals in the U.S. are frequently dependent on government assistance, and Democrats are generally far more prone to favor generous assistance programs. The recent arrivals are also less likely to favor or have significant understanding of the benefits of a traditional adherence to constitutional mandates and rights guarantees, an issue of great importance to Republicans.

More than just votes are involved, however. A Capital Research  study found that refugee resettlement has become a lucrative business. The study notes that “Surveys of Americans show mixed views on immigration issues, and yet for the Left all immigration is good, no matter what laws or legislatures say.  Major donors on the Left, which normally champion every kind of government regulation, support immigration without limits, and a number of large nonprofits reap not only private funding but millions of tax dollars in the resettlement business.  Most Americans have never even heard of the programs that disburse these monies in their name. Left-wing grant-makers have embarked on a campaign aimed at overwhelming America with unprecedented levels of immigration. These foundations underwrite a universe of liberal organizations that are devoted to bringing in ever more people from all over the world, and the organizations’ motives include money. These groups, known as “Volunteer Agencies” (VOLAGs), don’t just receive private dollars from liberal foundations; they also are richly rewarded with your tax dollars when they collaborate with federal government agencies.”

The impact on America’s ongoing employment crisis is serious. The Washington Free Beacon recently reported that “ Illegal Immigrants Outnumber Unemployed Americans, with 11.3 million illegal immigrants in U.S… Of those 11.3 illegal immigrants, 8.1 million are participating in the labor force. “Unauthorized immigrants make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force,” [a]Pew [study] says. “In the U.S. labor force, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012… The executive action on immigration President Obama put in place in November of 2014 is set to help more illegal aliens become active in the labor force.”

Without effective screening at the border, some of the illegals entering the nation are criminals, impacting the safety of communities throughout the nation. Some of the most severe problems occur in so-called sanctuary cities, where local authorities do not take steps to report or remove illegals.

At a recent hearing, Senator Grassley  (R-Iowa) introduced legislation  to hold accountable sanctuary jurisdictions that are harboring illegal immigrants who have criminal records. Grassley’s legislation (The Improving Cooperation with States and Local Governments and Preventing the Catch and Release of Criminal Aliens Act of 2015) would withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate on criminal aliens and other high priority individuals.  The bill would also increase the amount of time, from up to 2 years to a mandatory 5 years, an illegal immigrant must spend in jail for re-entry after deportation.

“No more people should die at the hands of those who ignore our immigration laws and commit crimes. No more families should have to go through what our hearing witnesses have experienced,’ Grassley said. ‘Sanctuary jurisdictions are giving a free pass to illegal immigrants who have repeatedly violated this country’s laws and are now going on to commit other serious, violent offenses.

Grassley’s bill comes as he convened a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focusing on how the Obama administration’s immigration policies and practices are hurting American families.  The Committee heard powerful testimony from a number of relatives who have lost loved ones as a direct result of the administration’s failure to deport criminals or its tolerance of sanctuary policies.”

Despite the extraordinary problems, some major municipalities, such as New York City, are taking steps to make it easier for illegals to inappropriately register to vote, such as granting local ID cards.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Nicaragua joins Russia in tank manuevers

Nicaragua is engaging in tank war games alongside Russia and China. The Central American nation of about 5.7 million is smaller than New York.

It is the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. Nevertheless, it is joining Russia, China, Belarus, Tajikistan, India and Egypt in a Moscow suburb, at an event sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defense. The Diplomat reports.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies  notes that “Though Russia has not been entirely absent from [Latin America] in recent years, recent statements from the Russian Defense Ministry bring that involvement to a new level. Late last month, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced Russian plans to build military bases in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela, marking Russia’s most forward endeavors in the region since the end of the Cold War.”

Joseph Klein, writing for Front Page,  outlines Moscow’s deep and continuing bid to be a forceful military presence in Latin America:

“Russia is also on the lookout for refueling sites for Russian strategic bombers on patrol. Russia is already a major arms supplier to Venezuela, whose navy has conducted joint maneuvers with Russian ships. At least four Russian Navy ships visited Venezuela last August, the Venezuelan daily El Universal reported.“Two Russian Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers flew last October from an airbase in southwestern Russia and landed in Venezuela in routine exercise,” Russia’s Defense Ministry announced, according to the Voice of Russia. “The nuclear-capable bombers, which took off from the Engels airbase in the Volga region, ‘flew over the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific and along the southwestern coast of the North American continent, and landed at Maiquetia airfield in Venezuela,’ the ministry said in a statement.”

Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela, is so enamored of Putin that he expressed support last year for the Russian president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. During a visit to Moscow by Maduro last summer, Maduro and Putin reaffirmed, in Putin’s words, “their wish for continuing their course towards strategic cooperation in all sectors.”

Putin was the first Russian president to visit Cuba since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Pravda quoted Putin as declaring in 2012 that Russia gained the consent of the Cuban leadership to place ‘the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles ‘Oak’ on the island,’ …

Left-wing Argentinian President Cristina Fernández is intent on forging closer relations with Russia, inviting Russia to invest in fuel projects. … Ecuador was also interested in buying Russian military equipment.

“… what we are seeking with Russia is a strategic partnership based on the joint development of technology,” said Brazilian Defense Minister Celso Amorim after meeting with his Russian counterpart.”

Russia is also forging a closer relationship with El Salvador.

Nicaragua is not just interested in Russian tanks.  McClatchy reports that “Russia is rekindling its once-strong ties to Nicaragua, possibly including providing the Central American nation with jet fighters, stoking unease as far away as the Andes in South America…The rumored provision of the Russian jet fighters to Nicaragua has spawned fears of an arms race in Central America and once again made Nicaragua a bit player in the geopolitical to-and-fro between Washington and Moscow. … In 2013, Russia agreed to offer patrol gunboats to Nicaragua. As part of the Russian defense minister’s visit in February, Nicaragua agreed to ease rules to allow Russian warships to enter Nicaraguan ports. More than 45 military cadets and officers left Nicaragua last September for extended training in Russia.”