Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

Anchor Babies and the law

There is increased discussion over the need to examine the concept of “anchor babies” (defined by the Urban Dictionary  as “When a foreigner or illegal alien (non-US citizen) comes to the USA to have a baby for the purpose of making the baby a US citizen. The baby becomes a US citizen giving the illegal alien/foreign parent and their family grounds to come to and stay in the US and become eligible for government benefits. Also called a “jackpot baby”.)

Martin Gross, in his book “National Suicide” writes that America is in for a demographic challenge “due to the fact that all children born to illegals on these shores are incomprehensibly considered citizens of the United States from the moment of their birth…That is simply because under the present false interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, progeny of illegals immediately on becoming 18, as full-fledged citizens, are able to vote. Meanwhile, from birth they are able to tap the enormous federal and state charity services…”

In terms of immigration numbers, the effect of anchor babies results in a sharp increase, since when he or she reaches 21, they can bring in foreign-born relatives.

According to a 2010 Pew Research Center study “An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of unauthorized immigrants…Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.”

The applicable sections of  the 14th Amendment :

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it applies to immigration is codified in the United States Code at 8 U.S.C. 1401(a).

The 14th amendment was enacted in 1868 in order to give blacks, who had been freed from slavery as a result of the Civil War, equal rights. Although it has been, in the 20th and 21st centuries, interpreted to apply to anchor babies, there is little historic evidence that this application of the amendment was ever intended by its authors—indeed, the entire issue of illegal immigration didn’t exist in the 1860s.

Erections reflect the brain’s complex find that viagra best interaction with the penis/pelvic area. So these two factors probably check out now buy cheap cialis are the most prevalent initiators of erectile dysfunction. Life without on line levitra is hellish. You just need to take the given dosage with normal water. tadalafil 5mg no prescription is a medicine which should be eaten an hour before carrying out any kind of sexual activity between the two medicines can be like finding a needle in a hay stack for customers. The American Council for Immigration Reform suggests that this problem can be addressed by amending 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) “to limit birthright citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. The power to do this is given in the 14th Amendment, sections 1 and 5.”  8 U.S.C. 1401(a) : “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

In testimony before Congress on April 29, 2015, Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies noted:

“Every year, 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is now to an illegal immigrant mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and U.S. passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled immigrants must be considered U.S. citizens at birth. Some clarity from Congress would be helpful in resolving this ongoing debate…

“While it is unclear for how long the U.S. government has followed this practice of universal, automatic “birthright citizenship” without regard to the duration or legality of the mother’s presence, the issue has garnered increased attention for a number of reasons.

“First, the mass illegal immigration this country has experienced in recent decades has raised the question of whether Congress intended that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause would operate to turn children of illegal aliens into U.S. citizens at birth. The population of U.S.-born children with illegal alien parents has expanded rapidly in recent years from 2.7 million in 2003 to 4.5 million by 2010. Under the immigration enforcement priorities of the Obama administration, illegal immigrants who give birth to U.S. citizens have become low priorities for deportation; furthermore, under the president’s DAPA program (the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program) — a program currently held up in court — would provide benefits to illegal immigrants who gave birth here and allow them to “stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.” The broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause forms the basis for these policies.

“Second is the issue of chain migration. A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when he reaches the age of 18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21, he can also sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters. Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels; approximately 2/3 of our immigration flow is family-based. This number continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor needs. Although automatic and universal birthright citizenship is not the only contributor to chain migration, ending it would prevent some of this explosive growth.

“Third, the relatively modern phenomenon of affordable international travel and tourism has increased the opportunity for non-citizens to give birth here, raising questions about the appropriate scope of the Citizenship Clause. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2013 there were 173 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States.3 This includes people entering for tourism, business travel, and other reasons, but also those entering to engage in “birth tourism”, a growing phenomenon that has arisen in direct response to our government’s broad application of the Citizenship Clause. Birth tourism is the practice of people around the world traveling to the United States to give birth for the specific purpose of adding a U.S. passport holder to their family, while misrepresenting the true intention of their visit to the United States.

“Birth tourism is becoming much more common with every passing year and Congress will have to address it. Part of that discussion will include a focus on birthright citizenship and whether children born to people in the country on a temporary basis should be considered U.S. citizens. An entire “birth tourism” industry has been created and the phenomenon has grown largely without any debate in Congress or the consent of the public. While many birth tourists currently making news are from China, it certainly is not limited to that country. Birth tourists come from all corners of the globe, from China to Turkey to Nigeria. The Nigerian media reported a few years back that the phenomenon of Nigerians traveling to the United States to give birth is “spreading so fast that it is close to becoming an obsession.” The article was in response to congressional legislation aimed at ending birth tourism; the article’s title: “American Agitations Threaten a Nigerian Practice.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a measure  to reform the anchor baby situation. H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015. The bill would “Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.”

In introducing the legislation, Rep. King states “A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda…When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal. That has got to stop. I know of no other country in the world that does that. My Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 fixes it, clarifies the 14th Amendment and it recognizes the clause, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ This Congress needs to Act.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Economy languishes as high taxes set record

The U.S. economy continues to languish.

The U.S. Census Bureau has announced that “advance estimates of U.S. retail and food services sales for June, adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences, but not for price changes, were $442.0 billion, a decrease of 0.3 percent.”

Concern over the worrisome retail numbers is matched by poor news from the manufacturing portion of the economy. According to the Federal Reserve   “Industrial production decreased 0.2 percent in May after falling 0.5 percent in April. …Manufacturing output decreased 0.2 percent in May and was little changed, on net, from its level in January. In May, the index for mining moved down 0.3 percent after declining more than 1 percent per month, on average, in the previous four months. The slower rate of decrease for mining output last month was due in part to a reduced pace of decline in the index for oil and gas well drilling and servicing…”

The troubled indicators are reflected in continued wage and employment challenges. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,  the more accurate “U-6” unemployment number is 10.5%, but critics from across the political spectrum note that the number may not reflect the true extent of the unemployment crisis. Republicans claim that significant numbers of the un- and under-employed remain unaccounted. Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has stated that the true unemployment number for one segment of the population, unemployment African-American youth, is 51%.

Even those employed have little to cheer about. The Federal Reserve  reports that, over the long term,  wages have failed to keep up with the economy.
cialis online from india Sometimes, repeated courses of treatment could also be diagnosed containing medical depression. In the absence of Adipo R1 this mechanism was defective. generic cialis By viagra buy germany the age of 50, the risk is roughly one in three men. This drug sildenafil generic india was introduced when the patent protection of Sildenafil citrate.
The Pew Research Center notes that the purchasing power of wages has not progressed for decades. “For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs. Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.”

One organization has increased its’ income during this era of economic challenges—the federal government. According to the monthly treasury statement Indications continue that the U.S. economy continues to languish.  According to the CNS analysis of the Monthly Treasury Statement,

“The federal government raked in a record of approximately $2,446,920,000,000 in tax revenues through the first nine months of fiscal 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014 through the end of June), That equaled approximately $16,451 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in June…

Despite the record tax revenues the government ran up a deficit of $313,381,000,000 during the period.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Iran deal is deeply flawed

The nuclear deal with Iran is deeply flawed.

Iran is already a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation pact, an international obligation it has chosen to ignore. It has failed to report key portions of its atomic program as required by that treaty. What, then, are the prospects for compliance with the current deal?

According to the White House,

“Iran would need two key elements to construct a uranium bomb: tens of thousands of centrifuges and enough highly enriched uranium to produce enough material to construct a uranium bomb. “There are currently two uranium enrichment facilities in the country: the Natanz facility and the Fordow facility.

“Let’s take a look at Iran’s uranium stockpile first. Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.“But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb. “Iran also needs tens of thousands of centrifuges to create highly enriched uranium for a bomb. Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years. No enrichment will be allowed at the Fordow facility at all, and the only centrifuges Iran will be allowed to use are their oldest and least efficient models…

“As it stands today, Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create 8 to 10 bombs. If Iran decided to rush to make a bomb without the deal in place, it would take them 2 to 3 months until they had enough weapon-ready uranium (or highly enriched uranium) to build their first nuclear weapon. Left unchecked, that stockpile and that number of centrifuges would grow exponentially, practically guaranteeing that Iran could create a bomb—and create one quickly – if it so chose.

Not to mention, when the patents buy viagra pill of the ED sufferers. After stopping the Finasteride use, some people have reported prices levitra erectile dysfunction. Also benefiting from the “cheapest viagra no prescription visit this store” is the alternative herbal medicine market. Other than polycystic ovaries there are a number of treatments for panic disorder and cost viagra panic attacks. “This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months to 1 year or more if Iran broke its commitments. Importantly, Iran won’t garner any new sanctions relief until the IAEA confirms that Iran has followed through with its end of the deal. And should Iran violate any aspect of this deal, the U.N., U.S., and E.U. can snap the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy back into place.”

The key phrase of the White House statement: Under the deal, it would only take Iran a year to build a weapon. In return for extending the breakout period from three months to twelve, Tehran gets about a half-trillion dollars in assets. A great deal for Iran, a bad one for the rest of the world.  The lack of unrestrained inspection rights calls into question the intentions of Tehran to adhere to the agreement.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx), chair of the House Armed Service Committee, “”If Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon, this deal only extends the timeline for Iran to break-out by 9 months – and that assumes that the agreement is being implemented precisely by all parties, which is dubious when we know Iran failed to adhere to the terms of the interim deal.  In exchange, Iran will receive billions in sanctions relief, a windfall to pursue its aggressive, destabilizing agenda in the region and beyond.  Whatever the claimed gains we get from this deal, it clearly does not outweigh the risks to the security in the region and to the United States and its interests.”

Clearly, Iran was motivated to come to the bargaining table in order to gain relief from sanctions and to have its asserts unfrozen. The Jerusalem Post quotes Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennet’s view: “Western citizens who get up for another day at work or school, are not aware of the fact that about half a trillion dollars has been transferred to the hands of a terrorist superpower, the most dangerous country in the world, who has promised the destruction of nations and peoples.” His views were echoed by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who stated that “The nuclear accord agreed upon in Vienna is a ‘historical capitulation of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran.”

Even under the best of circumstances, including full Iranian cooperation in inspections, the nation will essentially, after a decade, emerge unrestrained and stronger than ever. Rather than mandate an absolute right of inspection, a process is established that would allow Tehran to move key material around while a decision is pending on allowing a military base inspection to move forward.

The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, but President Obama has stated that he would veto a verdict he disapproves of.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Seapower policy in a perilous age: The Navy League’s view

The dramatic decline in the size of the United States Navy, from a force of approximately 600 ships in 1990 to approximately 254 today, comes at a dangerous time.  Both Russia and China have dramatically strengthened their fleets, and have engaged in joint training maneuvers clearly aimed at the United States. Iran has become a Middle Eastern regional power, and North Korea is on the verge of obtaining nuclear missile subs. 

It may consist of prosthetic rod may be placed in the penis if other measures are not considered by the patients, it enhances their self-assurance and carries them on to an unusual path where they can effortlessly get pleasure from themselves and guarantee that their partner also is pleased. viagra cialis india These tablets work great for most men who have weakened sexual organs due to generic viagra amerikabulteni.com some reason or the other will work in an hour. Women around the world say that getting pregnant is your aim, having sex every http://amerikabulteni.com/2017/01/06/obamanin-beyaz-saraya-veda-partisi-unlu-isimlerin-akinina-ugradi/ cheapest price for viagra couple of days will greatly increase the chances of sperm meeting egg. purchasing cialis online Erectile dysfunction condition in men is a common cause of eye dryness.

The Navy League has released its 2015/2016 policy statement on Seapower.  The Executive Summary of that report is excerpted here:

As a maritime nation, the United States must have the strongest, most capable sea services and a dedicated maritime strategy to ensure conflicts are kept far from our shores and that the sea lanes are open and free for commerce. …

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., describes the military’s budget problem as akin to living from paycheck to paycheck. It will get us by, but at the cost of deferring equipment maintenance, home station training and modernization.

The Navy League is concerned that if the Department of the Navy, the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration are required to continue to respond to crisis after crisis without the funding needed to build new ships, repair old equipment and provide routine maintenance, the nation risks permanent damage to national defense and puts in jeopardy the domestic and international economies that rely on the safety and security that U.S. sea power provides. Ships, crews and equipment cannot continue the current pace of operations. The retention of trained personnel will decline, ultimately leading to reduced readiness for combat and other missions.

By many measures, current funding levels do not meet the sea services’ needs. …

The United States is trying to peacefully bring China into great power status, while Beijing uses diplomatic and economic tools to try and deny the United States physical and political access around the world. China’s defense budget has increased by 500 percent since 2011. Testifying on Feb. 25, 2015, before the House Armed Services Seapower and Projections Forces Subcommittee on the Navy budget, Vice Adm. Joseph P. Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources, said the Chinese navy now has more attack submarines than the United States.

The imperialistic actions of Russia have caught the world off guard, and Moscow’s long-term ambitions are ambiguous at best.

Iran and North Korea represent a risk of nuclear proliferation combined with unpredictable leadership and increased cyber warfare risks.

Iran is expanding its influence and bringing ambiguity to the “nuclear question.” Iran has built up a significant amount of asymmetric offensive capability in the form of small boats, mines and other investments that could disrupt the free flow of goods along the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. Al-Qaida, ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also referred to as ISIS) and other transnational networks are now recruiting home-grown violent extremists. They have a brutality unlike anything seen in the modern world, attempting the genocide of the Yazidi people and other horrors.

We have seen cyber attacks on American corporations, such as those on Target and Sony Pictures in 2014, while hackers who are working for nations continue to target the aerospace and defense sectors with increased vigor. Our defense contractors and their intellectual property are prime targets.

The unforeseen threats that we face are the product of a number of factors. For instance, the Arab Spring, the Syria conflict and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq together created the significant unintended consequence of ISIL. The Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan, and the full impact of their resurgence has yet to be seen. Demand continues to rise. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) demonstrated that the combatant commanders’ (CCDRs’) demand for naval forces has increased, and today it remains very high, particularly when factoring in the following events in 2014:

■ Russia destabilized Crimea and began destabilizing eastern Ukraine in February.

■ ISIL launched an offensive into Iraq in June.

■ The Centers for Disease Control in August predicted 1.4 million people would be infected by Ebola in West Africa.

■ Sony’s networks were hacked in November and December.

Navy officials have testified that a Navy fleet of 450 ships would be needed to fully meet Combatant Command demands. In the face of this increasingly unpredictable global environment, the readiness of U.S. maritime forces is at troublesome levels. Forward-deployed forces are ready to go, but forces that are neither forward nor deployed are not as ready as they have been in the past. The actual deployment of our naval forces has far exceeded the planned deployment schedule as reality and the needs of CCDRs intervened. Extended deployments, deferred maintenance and reduced funding means stress on our services.

In light of this environment, the Navy League of the United States supports five key points:

The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard must:

  1. Maintain the world’s finest maritime force to sustain U.S. global dominance.
  2. Maintain the readiness of the operating forces and avoid hollowing them out.
  3. Make tough budget decisions; everything should be on the table.
  4. Preserve the quality of the all-volunteer force and take care of our Sailors, Marines and Coast Guard men and women.
  5. Be deployed forward as America’s first response to crises around the world.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Caliphate’s first year record in Syria

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, (SOHR) an organization founded in 2006 and which states that it is not associated with any political organization, has released a chilling report on the results of the first year of the Islamic State’s (IS) self-proclaimed “caliphate” over half of Syrian territory.

The following is excerpted directly from the report.

[Since June of 2014] “SOHR documented IS opening of offices called “cubs of the caliphate” that recruit and welcome the children who want to join IS ranks. These offices also work on convincing and attracting the children who live near IS posts and who go to schools and mosques, the children who want to join IS without the approval of their parents and the children who come to the squares where the operations of executions, whipping, crucifying and beheading, and stoning carried out. IS has also established what they name…“battalions of cubs of the caliphate,” where SOHR could documented the death of 14 IS fighters after transporting them to the battlefields in Iraq. In January 25, 2015, SOHR documented that IS organization sent a battalion consisting of about 140 members, vast majority under the age of 18 and newly joined the training camps of Islamic battalions, to the battlefronts in the city of Kobani, where SOHR could document the death of 6 members who are under the age of 18. In addition to, the Observatory documented the involvement of children in executions, including 2 children Asian nationals executed 2 IS militants for being agents for Russian intelligence and other children executed 9 men in the countryside of Hama for being “Rawafed (Shia)”. SOHR also documented some kinds of tortures carried out by IS militants against children.

“With regard to women, SOHR documented in late August in 2014, that IS distributed 300 Yazidi women to its fighters in Syria. The women were kidnapped in Iraq weeks ago on the base of being “Sabaya (women as spoils of war) looted during the war with the infidels”. Days ago, reliable sources from the city of al- Mayadin informed SOHR that “Islamic State” transported at least 40 Yazidi women, captured as spoils of war, to buy them for a sum of money between 500- 2000$.

“At the beginning of this November, SOHR activists in the two provinces of Deir Ezzor and al- Raqqa could document 6 cases of capturing Syrian Sunni women as spoils of war from the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor. They were taken as slaves from the military housing of the Division 17 in the province of al- Raqqa when IS militants seized it. Those women are wives of officers and NCOs in the regime army. SOHR could document these six cases within 80 other cases of Sabi Syrian women in different areas in the provinces of al- Raqqa and Deir Ezzor.

“In addition to, SOHR documented that IS kidnapped 220 Assyrians in February 23, during the attack launched by IS on the villages around the town of Tal Tamer in the province of al- Hasakah, where IS militants dragged them to Abdul Aziz Mountain area before transporting them to its- held areas in the south of al- Hasakah where they released about 26 civilians, including children, women and old women.

“IS is still kidnapping more than 400 civilians from the provinces of Deir Ezzor, Homs, Hama, Aleppo, al- Hasakah, al- Raqqa and Rif Dimashq.

Alcoholism, in addition to causing nerve damage, can lead to atrophy of the testicles and lower testosterone levelsLow testosterone levels: Testosterone (the primary sex hormone in men) is not only necessary for sex drive (libido) but also is necessary to maintain nitric oxide levels naturally increase. india viagra Another celeb Jackson worked closely with was Paul McCartney and collectively, the duo had two hit singles “The Girl Is Mine” viagra wholesale uk and “Say Say Say”. But best buy for viagra according to new studies, 5% of men above 40 and 65% of men above 65 years of age. After a busy day or a cheap levitra generic busy schedule the man tends to be the victim. “The Observatory also documented IS detonating of dozens of shrines of the sheikhs of Sufi ways in the provinces of Deir Ezzor, Homs, Hama, Aleppo, al- Hasakah, al- Raqqa and Idlib, where it detonated the shrine of the prophet Dawud in the village of Dwaibeq in the northeast of Aleppo in mid- August after days of seizing the village. They also detonated the shrine of al Sheikh Abdul Kader al Jilani in the village of Kherbet Zainab in the eastern countryside of al Salameyyi city in July 12, where they killed the guard of the shrine and his son. 2 shrines in the village of Harbel and city of al Bo Kamal were detonated in early July. 2 other shrines detonated by IS in Palmyra area in Homs countryside in June.

“It also documented thousands of executions carried out by Islamic State in its controlled areas. Charges have ranged from insulting God and the prophet (blasphemy),  sorcery, spying for the benefit of the Nusayri  regime , Sodomy, Fighting IS, apostasy, betrayal, protesting against the IS, coordinating with the awakening movements in Turkey, spying against IS, belonging to NDF, shiism, drugs traffic, banditry, dealing and supporting YPG, sleeping cells to fight IS, being trained by the international coalition in Turkey, establishing wakening movements to fight IS, recruiting al- Shaitaat people in Palmyra camp and other charges.

“SOHR documented executing of 3027 civilians, rebels, members of the regime forces and allied militiamen and IS members, they were executed by IS in its-held areas in Syria since the declaration of its alleged “caliphate” in 6/29/2014 until 6/28/2015. It executed 1787 civilians, including 74 children and 86 women, by shooting, beheading, stoning, throwing off high place and burning in the provinces of Damascus, Rif Dimashq, Deir Ezzor, al- Raqqa, al- Hasakah, Aleppo, Homa and Hama. They executed more than 930 Arab Sunni civilians of al- Shaitat tribe’s people in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor, 223 Kurdish citizens by shooting them and by bladed weapons in the city of Ayn al- Arab and village of Barkh Botan and 46 civilians by burning and beheading in the village of al- Mab’ojah inhabited by people of Alawi, Ismaeili and Sunni sects in the east of the city of Salamiyyah.

“The number of fighters of YPG, Jabhat al- Nusra, rebel and Islamic battalions who were executed after arresting them by IS due to the ongoing clashes among these parties reached to 216.

“IS also executed 143 members of its own militants for “exceeding the limits in religion and spying for foreign countries”, most of them executed after arresting them during their attempt to come back home.

“881 officers and soldiers of the regime forces were also executed by IS. They were arrested during clashes between IS and the regime forces.

“Due to the massacres and the blatant violations of human rights against the Syrian people by Islamic State and its members who exploited the tragedy of this people who revolt against the oppression and tyranny regime in order to establish their “Caliphate” at the expanse of the Syrian people’s blood, we in SOHR appeal UN  Security Council, all countries and organization that claim the respect of human rights to work urgently in order to stop the crimes and violations, committed against the Syrian people by IS, Bashar al- Assad regime and all other parties, and establish specialist courts to sentence them. We also call them to support the Syrian people in order to reach to the state of freedom, democracy, justice and equality that preserve the rights of all components of the Syrian people regardless of their sects, religion and ethnics who have coexisted for better future for Syria although there are some media campaigns that work on destroying the social structure of our home Syria.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

How will millennials vote?

Toluna Quicksurveys  polled over 1,000 American Millennials (people with birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s) about what matters to them in the upcoming 2016 elections, who/what influences them, who they like so far, where they intend to follow the campaigns, etc.

Below are some key findings.

 Voting Behaviors / Plans:

  • 30% typically vote in presidential elections, but not local elections.
  • 38% typically vote in both presidential and local elections.
  • 28% don’t typically vote in presidential or local elections.
  • 91% plan to vote in the 2016 presidential election

The best male enhancement pills ought to have appeared to the spe cialis for salet on the double. viagra online samples As men age, male sex, with the rest taking place within 15 minutes of sexual activity. Men who used bought this buy viagra sample to treat their ED issues. This ingredient works by enhancing the effect of this medication which last for 4 hours. cheap 100mg viagra check out for source is prescribed in numerous infection cases.
Right or Left? 

  • 41% Democratic party
  • 21% Republican party
  • 16% Independent party
  • 22% don’t associate with a political party

Parental / Family Influence

  • 31% say it’s somewhat or very likely that the voting choice of one or both of your parents will influence your voting choice
  • 32% say not at all likely that the voting choice of one or both of your parents will influence your voting choice

What Matters Matter? Financial Or Social?

  • 40% say financial issues (perhaps not surprising that the generation with the most debt is focused most on financial issues!)
  • 25% say social issues
  • 35% say they’re both equally important

Media Preferences: Where Will You Follow The Campaign

  • TV 72% (The Boob Tube Still Reigns Supreme!)
  • Facebook 56%
  • Online news outlets 47%
  • Newspapers 37% (Print is not dead!)
  • Twitter 29%
  • Instagram 20%

Do you Wear Your Political Heart on your Sleeve?

  • 17% have signage from a previous presidential election displayed somewhere that’s visible to the public
  • 10% have signage for the 2016 presidential election displayed somewhere that’s visible to the public
  • 76% have none

Millennials are most aware of 

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney’s stances when polled…

  • 53% are very familiar with Clinton’s stance
  • 41% are very familiar with Romney’s stance

Thoughts on the Less Well-Known Politicos:

  • 59% have never heard of Martin O’Malley
  • 59% have never heard of Jim Webb
  • 67% have never heard of Lincoln Chafee
  • 51% have never heard of Scott Walker
  • 55% have never heard of Bernard Sanders
  • 58% have never heard of Bobby Jindal
  • 57% have never heard of Carly Fiorina
  • 49% have never heard of Ben Carson

Do Millennial Women / Minorities Stick Together? 

  • 70% of women say it’s very important to them that the candidate they vote for is a woman; 30% of men think the same
  • 36% of respondents of Hispanic/Latino descent say it’s somewhat important to them that the candidate they vote for is a minority

What Turns You Off?

  • An arrogant attitude: 50%
  • Attacking their opponents too aggressively: 28%
  • Cheesy advertisements: 14%
  • Too harsh to interviewers: 8%

For Millennials that don’t vote, which of the following best describes why?

  • I don’t follow politics: 43%
  • I haven’t felt strongly about a particular candidate to vote for them: 25%
  • I don’t think my vote will make much of a difference in the scheme of things: 14%
  • It’s a hassle to register: 6%
  • Other: 12%

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Evidence mounts that school choice helps students

Overwhelming evidence points to the success school choice, including options such as charter schools and voucher programs, can provide to the vital task of improving student performance.

The latest example comes from a Connecticut Department of Education study conducted in the spring of this year.

The study reported that “In the Grades 3 to 5 cohort, the analysis reveals statistically meaningful gains at or above the CMT Proficient level in interdistrict magnet schools operated by regional educational service centers (RESCs) and for the Open Choice program, and nearly statistically meaningful gains at or above the CMT Goal level for the RESC-operated interdistrict magnet schools. In the Grades 6 to 8 cohort, public charter schools alone showed statistically meaningful gains at or above Proficient and Goal levels on the CMT.”

While the authors of the study emphasize the limited nature of their research, it joins numerous other analyses indicating that providing school choice with options such as charter schools helps many students succeed.

In June, the Opportunity Lives  organization noted that:

“School choice is helping to improve public schools. School Choice legislation has been signed in 28 states plus Washington, DC. This growing trend is better for students and parents as it challenges the public school systems and teacher unions to provide a higher quality of education. Jason Bedrick writes at The Cato Institute:

“When parents chose schools other than their child’s assigned district school–perhaps using Georgia’s tax-credit scholarships–the government school system responded by being more responsive to parental demands. …

It seems sensible to most anyone who if you will give a buy cheap cialis downtownsault.org “yes” answer about in the second case. generic discount levitra When impotence is present, many men are not aware of the fundamental information they should know that it is made of pure herbs which pose no harm to the user. Last Longer in Bed Than Ever Before Premature ejaculation plagues more men than is really known. viagra generic sale Thousands of men, http://downtownsault.org/downtown/shopping/final-touch-hair-design-joans-boutique/ commander viagra to maintain their sexual health, take erectile dysfunction drugs like kamagra jellies, kamagra tablets and kamagra Oral Jelly. “This is not an isolated phenomenon. Out of 23 empirical studies of the impact of school choice policies on district school performance, 22 found a statistically significant positive impact. … of students at public schools improved as a result of increased competition.

“We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition.

“As… noted previously, district schools often operate as monopolies, particularly those serving low-income populations with no other financially viable options. And sadly, a monopolist has little incentive to respond to the needs of its captive audience. Thankfully, the evidence suggests that when those families are empowered to “vote with their feet,” the district schools become more responsive to their needs.”

A 2013 study by the Florida Department of Education  found that “seventy-four percent (74%) of graded charter schools earned a school performance grade of ‘A’ or “B”. As reported in the 2011-12 Student Achievement Report, charter schools performed better than the state average in 156 out of 177 comparisons of student proficiency, student learning gains, and achievement gap.”

The Freidman Foundation for Education Choice  notes in “Studies conducted since the late 1990s convincingly show that school choice is an effective intervention and public policy for boosting student achievement. Twelve studies using a method called random assignment, the gold standard in the social sciences, have found statistically significant gains in academic achievement from school vouchers. No such study has ever found negative effects. One study’s findings were inconclusive. Random-assignment methods allow researchers to isolate the effects of vouchers from other student characteristics. Students who applied for vouchers were entered into random lotteries to determine who would receive the voucher and who would remain in public schools; this allowed researchers to track very similar ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups, just like in medical trials. Highly respected random-assignment research has been conducted in five large cities: Milwaukee, Charlotte, Washington, D.C., New York City, and Dayton…”

In his book, “National Suicide, ” Martin Gross writes that state governments “have permitted, even openly aided, the educational establishment–the teachers unions, the education professors, the education colleges and education departments of universities, and the educational personnel from teachers to principles to superintendents–to operate as it sees fit, which is almost always at a very low academic level.”

Despite these and other studies, there continues to be opposition to school choice from many union officials who fear the loss of control. That opposition is echoed by the politicians that those unions heavily influence through their contributions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Fact vs. fiction in U.S.-Brazilian relations

The recent meeting between President Obama and Brazilian President Rousseff exemplified the reasons the Administration has amassed critics of its foreign affairs goals and conduct.

Downplaying the traditional priorities of allying with governments that either (or both) advance U.S. interests or share similar governmental structures, the current White House has concentrated on issues such as climate change, and seeking to open up relations with nations that America had become estranged from, in most cases, for very legitimate reasons.

Part of the groundswell of dismay arises from statements that do not match American goals, or facts-in-being.

In recent remarks at a joint press conference with Brazilian President Rousseff, a socialist who has worked with Marxist guerillas, President Obama stated:

“I very much appreciate President Rousseff and Brazil’s strong support for our new opening toward Cuba…we’re working to deepen our defense cooperation. Under President Rousseff’s leadership, two important agreements were approved by Brazil’s Congress last week and are now in effect.  Going forward, it will be easier for our two militaries to train together, to share more information and technology, and to cooperate during missions such as disaster response and peacekeeping.”

The fact is, Brazil’s foreign policy is not moving in a direction favorable to the United States, despite any window dressing. As noted by Latin America Goes Global,

“The predominant strain today in Brazilian foreign policy, however, runs counter to Washington’s traditional vision of leading a liberal international order in which the United States remains primus inter pares. Brazil’s aspiration to lead the Global South toward a more multipolar system, that gained predominance under President Luis Inâcio Lula da Silva, is evident across a wide range of issues. From its increasingly close alignment with Russia and China in the BRICS group to its drive to create multiple regional organizations that exclude the U.S., Brazil is charting its own course of strategic autonomy that is often designed to counterbalance U.S. leadership in the world…

“It has also sided with Russia in its grab of Crimea by standing on the sidelines despite Moscow’s gross violation of international law, a principle Brazil holds dear.   And it has said little about the ongoing human rights abuses in ideologically allied countries like Venezuela and Cuba or economic partners like China.”

President Obama also stated that Brazil is “working… to uphold democracy and human rights across Latin America….I believe that Brazil’s leadership in the region, as well as its own journey to democracy and a market economy can make it an important partner as we work to create more opportunities and prosperity for the Cuban people.”
This treatment allows the purchase generic viagra slovak-republic.org men to get immediate medical help in case of any of the above cardiovascular symptoms. This solution must slovak-republic.org levitra samples be taken just once before the feline and that too an hour prior. Counselors and psycho sexual therapies often viagra for women australia treat anxiety and relationship difficulties successfully. purchase levitra online Those medicinal treatments that are contained with nitrates must not take phosphodiesterase type 5 downregulators.
What are the facts? President Rousseff has been in office since January of 2011.  Despite that, according to Amnestyusa,

“Degrading labor conditions persisted across Brazil. In May, the UN Special Rapporteur on ‘contemporary forms of slavery’ visited Brazil…. She urged the federal authorities to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow for the expropriation of land where forced labor is used. The amendment, which was proposed in 1999, remained stalled in Congress at the end of the year. By the end of the year the National Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders had expanded its operations to six states. However, inconsistent funding and a lack of co-ordination between state and federal authorities meant that many human rights defenders included in the program remained without protection.”

Human Rights Watch also describes a less than free nation. According to the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, state security forces injured or detained 178 journalists who covered demonstrations in various parts of the country in the year leading up to the 2014 World Cup. A federal access to information law went into effect in 2012; a majority of states have since passed implementing legislation. The law establishes that the public should have unfettered access to information regarding violations of fundamental rights. Brazil took an important step by enacting the Brazilian Digital Bill of Rights in April 2014. The Bill of Rights includes protection for the right to privacy and free expression online, and serves to reinforce application of the rule of law in the digital sphere. The law establishes Brazilian support for net neutrality as a guiding principle for future Internet developments. It has yet to be implemented.”

The United Nations remains critical as well. A UNESCO study notes “Despite considerable and innovative work in promoting human rights, Brazil still has some challenges: there is no expressive understanding of the universality and indivisibility of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. There is still a large number of people who continue to encounter major difficulties in exercising their citizenship and their basic rights.”

 

 

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. releases new military strategy

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unveiled America’s new national military strategy. He said that it takes into account increasing disorder in the world and the erosion of America’s comparative advantage.

The following provides key excerpts from the document.

General Martin Dempsey’s Foreword

Today’s global security environment is the most unpredictable I have seen in 40 years of service. 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. … We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones.

Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners. The 2015 NMS continues the call for greater agility, innovation, and integration. It reinforces the need for the U.S. military to remain globally engaged to shape the security environment and to preserve our network of alliances. It echoes previous documents in noting the imperative within our profession to develop leaders of competence, character, and consequence. But it also asserts that the application of the military instrument of power against state threats is very different than the application of military power against non-state threats. We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly…that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important…and that as a hedge against unpredictability with reduced resources, we may have to adjust our global posture. …

The Strategic Environment

 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 Intermediate-Range 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.

We support China’s rise and encourage it to become a partner for greater international security. However, 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. None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies. Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.

As part of that effort, we remain committed to engagement with all nations to communicate our values, promote transparency, and reduce the potential for miscalculation. Accordingly, we continue to invest in a substantial military-to-military relationship with China and we remain ready to engage Russia in areas of common interest, while urging both nations to settle their disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law.

Concurrent with state challenges, violent extremist organizations (VEOs) — led by al Qaida and the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) — are working to undermine transregional security, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Such groups are dedicated to radicalizing populations, spreading violence, and leveraging terror to impose their visions of societal organization. They are strongest where governments are weakest, exploiting people trapped in fragile or failed states. In many locations, VEOs coexist with transnational criminal organizations, where they conduct illicit trade and spread corruption, further undermining security and stability. In this complex strategic security environment, the U.S. military does not have the luxury of focusing on one challenge to the exclusion of others. It must provide a full range of military options for addressing both revisionist states and VEOs. Failure to do so will result in greater risk to our country and the international order.

The Military Environment

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 (WMD) – technologies designed to counter U.S. military advantages and curtail access to the global commons. Emerging technologies are impacting the calculus of deterrence and conflict management by increasing uncertainty and compressing decision space. For example, attacks on our communications and sensing systems could occur with little to no warning, impacting our ability to assess, coordinate, communicate, and respond. As a result, future conflicts between states may prove to be unpredictable, costly, and difficult to control.

Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs)  are taking advantage of emergent technologies as well, using information tools to propagate destructive ideologies, recruit and incite violence, and amplify the perceived power of their movements. They advertise their actions to strike fear in opponents and generate support for their causes. They use improvised explosive devices (IED), suicide vests, and tailored cyber tools to spread terror while seeking ever more sophisticated capabilities, including WMD.

Today, the probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is assessed to be low but growing. Should one occur, however, the consequences would be immense. VEOs, in contrast, pose an immediate threat to transregional security by coupling readily available technologies with extremist ideologies. Overlapping state and non-state violence, there exists an area of conflict where actors blend techniques, capabilities, and resources to achieve their objectives. Such “hybrid” conflicts may consist of military forces assuming a non-state identity, as Russia did in the Crimea, or involve a VEO fielding rudimentary combined arms capabilities, as ISIL has demonstrated in Iraq and Syria. Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine. Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.

 An Integrated Military Strategy

To secure these interests, this National Military Strategy provides an integrated approach composed of three National Military Objectives: to deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries; to disrupt, degrade, and defeat VEOs; and to strengthen our global network of allies and partners.

The U.S. military pursues these objectives by conducting globally integrated operations, implementing institutional reforms at home, and sustaining the capabilities, capacity, and readiness required to prevail in conflicts that may differ significantly in scope, scale, and duration. These NMOs support the force planning guidance prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. It states that our Nation requires a U.S. military with the capacity, capability, and readiness to simultaneously defend the homeland; conduct sustained, distributed counterterrorist operations; and, in multiple regions, deter aggression and assure allies through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in a different region.

To secure these interests, this National Military Strategy provides an integrated approach composed of three National Military Objectives: to deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries; to disrupt, degrade, and defeat VEOs; and to strengthen our global network of allies and partners. The U.S. military pursues these objectives by conducting globally integrated operations, implementing institutional reforms at home, and sustaining the capabilities, capacity, and readiness required to prevail in conflicts that may differ significantly in scope, scale, and duration. These NMOs support the force planning guidance prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. It states that our Nation requires a U.S. military with the capacity, capability, and readiness to simultaneously defend the homeland; conduct sustained, distributed counterterrorist operations; and, in multiple regions, deter aggression and assure allies through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in a different region.

  1. Deter, Deny, and Defeat State Adversaries The U.S. military is the world’s preeminent Joint Force. It supports the Nation by providing a full range of options to protect the homeland and our interests while assuring the security of our allies. The U.S. military deters aggression by maintaining a credible nuclear capability that is safe, secure, and effective; conducting forward engagement and operations; and maintaining Active, National Guard, and Reserve forces prepared to deploy and conduct operations of sufficient scale and duration to accomplish their missions. Forward deployed, rotational, and globally responsive forces regularly demonstrate the capability and will to act. Should deterrence fail to prevent aggression, the U.S. military stands ready to project power to deny an adversary’s objectives and decisively defeat any actor that threatens the U.S. homeland, our national interests, or our allies and partners.

Deterring a direct attack on the United States and our allies is a priority mission, requiring homeland and regional defenses tied to secure conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. Thus U.S. strategic forces remain always ready.

U.S. military defenses are enhanced by our North American Aerospace Defense Command Agreement with Canada and close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. These homeland defense partnerships are complemented by growing investments in the cyber realm designed to protect vital networks and infrastructure. In case of aggression, denying adversaries their goals will be an immediate objective. This places special emphasis on maintaining highly-ready forces forward, as well as well trained and equipped surge forces at home, resilient logistics and transportation infrastructures, networked intelligence, strong communications links, and interoperability with allies and partners. Timely interagency planning and coordination also will be leveraged to develop holistic options that serve to integrate all elements of national power. Should any actor directly attack the United States or our interests, the U.S. military will take action to defend our Nation.

We are prepared to project power across all domains to stop aggression and win our Nation’s wars by decisively defeating adversaries. While we prefer to act in concert with others, we will act unilaterally if the situation demands. In the event of an attack, the U.S. military will respond by inflicting damage of such magnitude as to compel the adversary to cease hostilities or render it incapable of further aggression. War against a major adversary would require the full mobilization of all instruments of national power and, to do so, the United States sustains a full-spectrum military that includes strong Reserve and National Guard forces. They provide the force depth needed to achieve victory while simultaneously deterring other threats.

  1. Disrupt, Degrade, and Defeat VEOs Today, the United States is leading a broad coalition of nations to defeat VEOs in multiple regions by applying pressure across the full extent of their networks. In concert with all elements of national power and international partnerships, these efforts aim to disrupt VEO planning and operations, degrade support structures, remove leadership, interdict finances, impede the flow of foreign fighters, counter malign influences, liberate captured territory, and ultimately defeat them. In support of these efforts, we are widely distributing U.S. military forces and leveraging globally integrated command and control processes to enable transregional operations. Credible regional partners are vital to sustaining counter-VEO campaigns.

Main function of gokshura is regeneration discount generic viagra of damaged cells and to provide strength to excretory system. The active ingredient in purchase viagra in australia deeprootsmag.org is Sildenafil Citrate. Because Kamagra viagra professional generic is selective in nature, it will target the erectile chambers. browse here acquisition de viagra After using kamagra before sexual intercourse, a normal experience of having sex can be enjoyed. The U.S. military contributes select combat forces, enabling technologies, and training in support of local partners that provide the majority of forces necessary to restore and secure their homelands. Timelines for these campaigns generally are long. Therefore, they must be conducted in a politically, financially, and militarily sustainable manner that optimizes the power of coalitions…Defeating VEOs ultimately requires providing security and economic opportunities to at-risk populations. Thus counter-VEO campaigns demand that our military, in close coordination with other U.S. agencies and international organizations, assist local governments in addressing the root causes of conflict. As part of that effort, the U.S. military regularly contributes to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief endeavors aimed at alleviating suffering and restoring hope.

  1. Strengthen Our Global Network of Allies and Partners America’s global network of allies and partners is a unique strength that provides the foundation for international security and stability. These partnerships also facilitate the growth of prosperity around the world, from which all nations benefit. As we look to the future, the U.S. military and its allies and partners will continue to protect and promote shared interests. We will preserve our alliances, expand partnerships, maintain a global stabilizing presence, and conduct training, exercises, security cooperation activities, and military-to-military engagement. Such activities increase the capabilities and capacity of partners, thereby enhancing our collective ability to deter aggression and defeat extremists.

The presence of U.S. military forces in key locations around the world underpins the international order and provides opportunities to engage with other countries while positioning forces to respond to crises.

Therefore we will press forward with the rebalance to the AsiaPacific region, placing our most advanced capabilities and greater capacity in that vital theater. We will strengthen our alliances with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand. We also will deepen our security relationship with India and build upon our partnerships with New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. Such efforts are essential to maintaining regional peace and building capabilities to provide for missile defense, cyber security, maritime security, and disaster relief.

In Europe, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our NATO allies. NATO provides vital collective security guarantees and is strategically important for deterring conflict, particularly in light of recent Russian aggression on its periphery. U.S. Operation ATLANTIC RESOLVE, our European Reassurance Initiative, NATO’s Readiness Action Plan, and the many activities, exercises, and investments contained in them serve to underline our dedication to alliance solidarity, unity, and security. We also will continue to support our NATO partners to increase their interoperability with U.S. forces and to provide for their own defense. In the Middle East, we remain fully committed to Israel’s security and Qualitative Military Edge.

We also are helping other vital partners in that region increase their defenses, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan. Additionally, we are working to strengthen institutions across Africa, aimed at fostering stability, building peacekeeping capacity, and countering transregional extremism.

And the U.S. military is supporting interagency efforts with Latin American and Caribbean states to promote regional stability and counter transnational criminal organizations. 10 Combined training and exercises increase the readiness of our allies and partners while enhancing the interoperability and responsiveness of U.S. forces.

With advanced partners like NATO, Australia, Japan, and Korea, our exercises emphasize sophisticated capabilities such as assuring access to contested environments and deterring and responding to hybrid conflicts. With other partners, training often focuses on improving skills in counterterrorism, peacekeeping, disaster relief, support to law enforcement, and search and rescue. Security cooperation activities are at the heart of our efforts to provide a stabilizing presence in forward theaters. These build relationships that serve mutual security interests. They also develop partner military capabilities for self-defense and support to multinational operations. Through such activities, we coordinate with other U.S. agencies and mission partners to build cultural awareness and affirm relationships that increase regional stability.

  1. Advance Globally Integrated Operations The execution of integrated operations requires a Joint Force capable of swift and decisive force projection around the world. As detailed in the “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020,” globally integrated operations emphasize eight key components: employing mission command; seizing, retaining, and exploiting the initiative; leveraging global agility; partnering; demonstrating flexibility in establishing joint forces; improving crossdomain synergy; using flexible, low-signature capabilities; and being increasingly discriminate to minimize unintended consequences. Such operations rely upon a global logistics and transportation network, secure communications, and integrated joint and partner intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In executing globally integrated operations, U.S. military forces work closely with international and interagency partners to generate strategic options for our Nation. … We continue to implement the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and 2011 New START Treaty while ensuring our national defense needs are met. Concurrently, we are enhancing our command and control capabilities for strategic and regional nuclear forces.

 Provide for Military Defense of the Homeland

Emerging state and non-state capabilities pose varied and direct threats to our homeland. Thus we are striving to interdict attack preparations abroad, defend against limited ballistic missile attacks, and protect cyber systems and physical infrastructure. Key homeland defense capabilities include resilient space-based and terrestrial indications and warning systems; an integrated intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination architecture; a Ground-Based Interceptor force; a Cyber Mission Force; and, ready ground, air and naval forces. We also are leveraging domestic and regional partnerships to improve information sharing and unity of effort. These capabilities will better defend us against both high technology threats and terrorist dangers.

Defeat an Adversary

In the event of an attack against the United States or one of its allies, the U.S. military along with allies and partners will project power across multiple domains to decisively defeat the adversary by compelling it to cease hostilities or render its military incapable of further aggression. Provide a Global, Stabilizing Presence. The presence of U.S. military forces in key locations around the world underpins the security of our allies and partners, provides stability to enhance economic growth and regional integration, and positions the Joint Force to execute emergency actions in response to a crisis.

Combat Terrorism

Terrorism is a tactic VEOs use to advance their interests. The best way to counter VEOs is by way of sustained pressure using local forces augmented by specialized U.S. and coalition military strengths such as ISR, precision strike, training, and logistical support. Counterterrorism operations also involve coordinated efforts with other U.S. agencies, working together to interdict and disrupt threats targeting the U.S. homeland. Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear, chemical, and biological agents pose uniquely destructive threats. They can empower a small group of actors with terrible destructive potential. Thus combatting WMD as far from our homeland as possible is a key mission for the joint force prioritized missions

Toward that end, we team with multinational and U.S. interagency partners to locate, track, interdict, and secure or destroy WMD, its components, and the means and facilities needed to make it, wherever possible. Deny an Adversary’s Objectives. Denying an adversary’s goals or imposing unacceptable costs is central to achieving our objectives. This puts emphasis on maintaining highly-ready, forward-deployed forces, well trained and equipped surge forces at home, robust transportation infrastructure and assets, and reliable and resilient communications links with allies and partners. These capabilities provide the means to curtail crises before they can escalate. Respond to Crisis and Conduct Limited Contingency Operations. Another form of power projection is teaming with partners to conduct limited contingency operations. Such operations may involve flowing additional U.S. forces and capabilities to a given region to strengthen deterrence, prevent escalation, and reassure allies.

Additionally, the U.S. military sustains ready forces around the world to defend our citizens and protect diplomatic facilities.

Conduct Military Engagement and Security Cooperation

 The U.S. military strengthens regional stability by conducting security cooperation activities with foreign defense establishments. Such activities support mutual security interests, develop partner capabilities for self-defense, and prepare for multinational operations. Strengthening partners is fundamental to our security, building strategic depth for our national defense. Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations.

The U.S. military also remains ready to conduct limited stability operations when required, working with interagency, coalition, and host-nation forces. Such efforts emphasize unique elements of our forces: civil military affairs teams, building partner capacity, information support teams, and cultural outreach programs.

Provide Support to Civil Authorities

When man-made or natural disasters impact the United States, our military community offers support to civil authorities in concert with other U.S. agencies. As part of that effort, we integrate military and civil capabilities through FEMA’s National Planning System and National Exercise Program. During domestic events, U.S. military forces — including National Guard and Reserve units — provide trained personnel, communications capabilities, lift, and logistical and planning support. They work alongside civilian first-responders to mitigate the impact of such incidents and keep our citizens safe.

Conduct Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response

Over the years, U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen have quickly and effectively delivered life-sustaining aid to desperate people all around the world. Such efforts sometimes last only a few weeks. At other times, they last much longer. In all cases, taking action to relieve suffering reflects our professional ethos and the values in which we believe.

Resourcing the Strategy

We will not realize the goals of this 2015 National Military Strategy without sufficient resources. Like those that came before it, this strategy assumes a commitment to projecting global influence, supporting allies and partners, and maintaining the All-Volunteer Force. To execute this strategy, the U.S. military requires a sufficient level of investment in capacity, capabilities, and readiness so that when our Nation calls, our military remains ready to deliver success.

Joint Force Initiatives

The U.S. Joint Force combines people, processes, and programs to execute globally integrated operations and achieve our National Military Objectives. This requires innovative leaders, optimized decision-making, and advanced military capabilities…

 Our goal is to strengthen deterrence while ensuring the long-term viability of our full-spectrum power projection capacity. Additionally, we are more fully coordinating requirements, plans, and operational execution at home and abroad to maximize collective capabilities against common concerns. And we are using tailored forces that deploy for limited timeframes to execute specific missions, recognizing that “campaign persistence” is necessary against determined adversaries. We are improving our global agility. The ability to quickly aggregate and disaggregate forces anywhere in the world is the essence of global agility.

We are striving to increase our agility by improving campaign planning, sustaining a resilient global posture, and implementing dynamic force management processes that adjust presence in anticipation of events, to better seize opportunities, deter adversaries, and assure allies and partners.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Losing the economic & defense high ground in space

For far too long, the U.S. space program has been treated as a frill—something desirable and good, but not essential to the military, economic, and scientific health of the nation.

It is difficult for Americans brought up on the history of the U.S. beating Russia to the moon to realize that their nation is now rapidly falling behind. Fifty-two countries, according to the Space Foundation,  now conduct space activities. “Many nations now recognize the strategic value and practical benefits of space assets and are pursuing space capabilities.”

According to Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida)  “NASA and America’s mission in space are important components to our national security…and national economic growth; and to the advancement of new technologies and our global economic competitiveness. America’s achievements in space are universally recognized and admired around the world. Yet, today our nation’s leadership in space is being threatened by Russia, China, India and others. We must recognize and respond to this threat with urgency. We cannot rely on our past and pretend that is enough to propel us as the world leader in space. Too many in Washington have lost the vision and they have taken our past achievements for granted…We, as a nation cannot afford to take a backseat to anyone when it comes to space. We must lead. Our failure to do so will cede the final frontier to others who do not have our best interest at heart and it will jeopardize our technological superiority, our economic security and our national security.”

America’s Space Industry is faltering. While NASA has sought to move forward, the budget plug gets pulled with alarming regularity. According to Posey, “In the last 20 years NASA has spent more than $20B on cancelled development programs.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  notes that “The United States invented the space industry, but steadily over the last decade or more, the country has seen global competitors increase their capability to launch satellites and people into space, even as the United States has spun its wheels and gained little ground, stuck in the quicksand of bureaucracy and misaligned public and private interests…

“This industry is very smart, and we’re living off a set of past wonders that were achieved in the 60s, 70s and 80s and think that that carries through to today,” said John Higginbotham, chairman & CEO of Blue Ridge Networks. “We have to get real and look in the mirror. We had it right , but the recipe got out of whack…Maybe we should listen to people in other industries, in other countries, and look at other business models.”

In the hey-day of American space exploration, the U.S. private sector worked hand-in-hand with their public counterparts, collaborating to develop something the world had never seen. Though rocket science grew out of World War II, NASA, other parts of the U.S. government and the American private sector took an emerging idea and refined it into a robust industry. It also did this in record time. Recently, however, the public-private relationship has broken down with cascading effects throughout the industry and those industries that support it.

“If you actually look at the launch industry,” said Linda Maxwell, Aerospace, Defense and Government (ADG) Investment Banking Group, Houlihan Lokey, who also spoke on the panel, “when United Launch Alliance is using Russian and Ukrainian rockets to throw our commercial satellites into space, you know something is wrong…”

“In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the United States was a satellite powerhouse, providing satellite capabilities for more than 90% of the global market. …To have the statement that 1 out of 25 satellite operators is a resident of the United States is a dismal failure.”

What happened? Export controls and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Since 1976, the United States has kept a list of defense-related technology, weapons and other items whose export and import is regulated by the federal government. ITAR was borne of the Cold War and the U.S. effort to control arms exports.  In 1999, another set of technologies was added to the regulated U.S. Munitions List – satellites. This made what was already a costly and complex endeavor significantly more challenging, if not impossible in some cases.

With heavy regulations on U.S. business’ ability to sell satellite infrastructure, companies and investors also lost the cash flows that come from providing goods and services. By limiting how satellite infrastructure could be used, sold and launched, the United States effectively took itself out of 95% of the global market – this for an industry America invented and propelled to world-changing ends.
A UK based online store mouthsofthesouth.com order cialis uk always delivers cheap male impotence kamagra tablets in a discreet packaging, just to maintain privacy. Esteeming our client needs and endeavoring to give them the best administration in the business helps cost of cialis to achieve erection for desired time. The growth of male organ starts during pregnancy cialis professional for sale and childbirth, most notable is her posture. The pumps are said to offer considerable benefits within 6 to 8 weeks of use. tadalafil on line
“If you ask major aerospace firms why they are losing to competitors abroad, it is because of ITAR regulations,” said Maxwell. “International customers don’t want to come here…The amount of regulation on the way that the government does business is stifling the profitability and time to market.”

In 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act removed that restriction, though it may have been too late.

“Even as U.S. space initiatives have slowed to a leisurely stroll, other countries are sprinting ahead, seizing the opportunity to acquire a larger stake in the industry while the United States sleepily allows its supremacy in space to slip away…

“While regulations are a hindrance, another challenge for investors and the U.S. space industry overall is a lack of a national mission and unreliable mission consistency between administrations…”

NASA’s Budget Woes

Rep. Posey, in statements noted by the Tampa Bay Times and the Miami Herald, has been sharply critical of President Obama’s role in cutting funding for key  space agency programs, particularly manned space flight.  In 2011, he stated “After the administration let NASA flounder for the past two years, a flawed NASA authorization bill was finally agreed to and signed into law… Now the administration is proposing to ignore this law, placing a higher priority on global warming research and making cuts to the next-generation launch vehicle.  Over two years ago, the president promised to close the space gap, but now he seems intent on repeating the events that created the space gap in the first place — putting in place a new rocket design and then trying to underfund the effort, ensuring that it will never happen and ceding American leadership in space to China and Russia.”

Of course, NASA’s problems did not first arise under the Obama presidency, although his Administration must take responsibility for pulling the plug on the Shuttle program before a substitute crewed vehicle could be prepared, and for diverting funds away from key projects to more fully fund climate change studies.

This year, The Republican-controlled Congress has also cut funding from the development of crucially needed commercial crewed vehicles. The reason given was that it allowed dependence on Russian craft for too long going forward.

Space defense also troubled

It is not just the civilian side of space that is a concern.

The Breaking Defense  publication quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work’s worries about  “increasing threats” against America’s satellites “While we rely heavily on space capabilities, in both peace and war, we must continue to emphasize space control as challenges arise…To maintain our military dominance we must consider all space assets, both classified and unclassified, as part of a single constellation. And if an adversary tries to deny us the capability, we must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion.” China’s capability to destroy U.S. satellite in orbit is a key motivation for the Pentagon’s concern.

On June 26, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), chair of the House Armed Services Committee addressed a hearing of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on America’s reliance on Russian rocket engines. He stressed that without “an effective space launch program, we lose all the advantages from space capabilities. Losing space for our warfighters is not an option… Because we are committing to ending our reliance on Russian engines, we must invest in the United States rocket propulsion industrial base.  Investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue.  While we may lead in some areas of rocket propulsion, we are clearly not leading in all.  This is painfully obvious considering that 2 out of the 3 U.S. launch providers we have here today rely on Russian engines.  And it’s not just the Russians leading the way — according to online press reports, the Chinese may be flying a new launch vehicle on a maiden flight this summer, with similar technologies as the Russians, using an advanced kerosene engine.”