Tag: defense

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Defense Time Warp

Washington’s leaders appear trapped in a time warp when it comes to making decisions about defense and foreign policy.

Still reveling in the bloodless victory a quarter-century ago over the Soviet Union in the first Cold War, President Obama, his progressive supporters, and some Republican budget hawks more concerned with balancing the budget than funding national security needs cling to the illusion that, since the USSR’s demise, there are no overarching threats from powerful nations.  In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the only real threat to the U.S. came from failed states.

Arguments are frequently made that the U.S. military is funded far better than any potential adversaries. The reality is, of course, that a vast percentage of spending on the armed forces of nations such as Russia and China are simply not reported, a strategy made easier by the absence of a free press in those nations.

Substantially ignored by far too many in government and media are these crucial realities that make the current era the most dangerous in American history:

For the first time in a century, Washington’s alliances do not constitute the most powerful military grouping in existence.  That distinction goes to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.

For the first time in history, the U.S. does not possess the most powerful or modern nuclear force.  Since the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the New Start Treaty, that distinction belongs to Moscow. Some believe that China’s vast military tunnel system may contain more nuclear weapons than America’s arsenal, as well.

The equipment, weapons and vehicles of America’s conventional forces are old and worn down by overuse. Those of our potential adversaries are fresher.

Get in the sun, or, take vitamin D. canada cialis levitra Foods that help spice up your sexual relationship with the cialis no prescription look at more info partner. It works the same as levitra 40 mg http://respitecaresa.org/christmas-wish-list/ does and contain the same ingredient sildenafil. The order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ act of Lovegra holds up for roughly 4-6 hour. Concerns over the diminished armed forces is not restricted to Republicans, conservatives, or hawks.

The U.S. Navy, once the unquestioned master of the world’s oceans, has shrunk to less than half its previous size while facing adversaries who have dramatically increased the size and capabilities of their fleets. The Chinese Navy already has more submarines than the U.S. has, and by 2020, its navy will surpass Washington’s in total numbers.  Beijing also possesses some unique weapons, such as land-based missiles that can devastate ships nearly a thousand miles from shore, a true game-changer.

Politico  has reported: “We have a crisis in the fleet… Today, at 284 warships, the United States Navy’s fleet is the smallest since World War I. But even that number probably overstates the Navy’s true capability: The Pentagon recently changed the rules by which it counts active warships and if you apply the traditional and more stringent method, the Navy has but 274 warships. [The NY Analysis pegs the number even lower.] Given sequestration, the fleet will continue to decline.”

The U.S. military no longer has the capability to fight a two-front war. The Heritage Foundation  notes that “The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

The American Enterprise Institute opines: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, American power has slowly but surely atrophied relative to the burgeoning threats that confront the United States. Seemingly attractive short-term defense cuts carried long-term costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in proliferating risk to American national interests. Military spending has fallen since 1991 by every metric—as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and in real terms—even as a declining share of the Pentagon budget funds combat-related activities…

“American political leadership has consistently asked the military to do more with less. Without sufficient military credibility to deter or contain conflict, an ever-smaller American military has been sent abroad far more frequently than in the Cold War. If the rosy assumptions about threats to American interests had proved true, none of this would matter. Yet the past decade has seen drastic and widespread negative developments for American interests, from the direct threat of radical Islamist terrorism to China’s unwillingness to cooperate instead of compete and Russia’s delusions of grandeur. These threats to stability might each be soluble in isolation, but together they require sustained application of American economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, each buttressed by credible US military power. If American political leadership continues to underfund and overuse the military, it will not result in a less ambitious foreign policy. It will result only in greater risk to American national interests. A weaker military has resulted in less credible American security guarantees and increased likelihood of conflict. A strong American military will rebuild the trust of our allies and ensure stability for a new American century.”

Decisions over the fate and funding of America’s military have been tied to balance sheets, politics, and conflicting ideologies. It’s time that the only appropriate criteria—the ability to deter enemy aggression—replaced those comparatively trivial considerations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

We gave peace a chance–and it didn’t work

We gave peace a chance—and it didn’t work.

Since 1990, the United States has sharply reduced its military strength. With the exception of the men and material used in the Gulf Wars, the American Armed Forces have sustained continued dramatic cuts that will, by the end of this year, leave the U.S. Army smaller than North Korea’s. The United States hasn’t been alone in this.  Our NATO allies have also slashed spending on their already weak forces.

By 2020, China’s navy will outpace America’s in key areas. Already, Russia has gained the advantage in strategic nuclear arms and continues its ten to one advantage in tactical nukes. North Korea has become an atomic threat, and, all agreements to the contrary, Iran may as well (the Weekly Standard  reports that Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month. Russia has been known to provide nuclear know-how to Iran.)

In the theory espoused by those who believe in the cliché of giving peace a chance, this was a grand experiment. Clearly, it has failed, producing a world closer to a major war than at any time since the end of World War 2. It is not just the development of quantitatively and, in some cases, qualitatively superior forces by nations hostile to the west that is the worrisome outcome of the diminishment of the Free World’s forces; it is in how those forces have been used.

Russia has twice invaded neighboring nations, and engages in intimidating actions towards its European neighbors and the North American coastline.

China has illegally occupied a resource-rich maritime area belonging to the Philippines. It is now claiming domination over vital sea lanes in contradiction of all international law.  Buoyed by President Obama’s eagerness to withdraw U.S. troops from abroad, ISIS has become a major regional power, and the Taliban is preparing for a major return in Afghanistan.

Even if one were to accept the concept, as the current White House clearly does, that America has been over-involved in foreign conflicts and that some aggressive actions by Moscow, Beijing, or others can be ignored, the reality is that the structure of the militaries recently developed by China and Russia appear to have as their target the United States. Moscow and Beijing have developed a deep and multi-faceted alliance. They no longer have any reason to be concerned about each other. No other great power exists, other than the United States, that justifies the high-tech and nuclear-enabled forces each has developed.
Mild sciatica symptoms will often subside on its own to every man of sildenafil online global population. This pack is available at cost effective http://raindogscine.com/anina-gana-en-la-plata-y-conquista-londres/ professional cialis 20mg prices. Man only order generic cialis can bring pleasure form ejaculation, childbirth and breast-feeding all can bring pleasure for women. It is estimated according to a brand levitra online study that was published in 2004, researchers followed male participants for approx. 25 years.
The danger is getting greater. Both Russia and China are continuing their substantial buildup, even as the U.S. continues to reduce its armed strength. The American nuclear arsenal continues to rust away, while Moscow and Beijing continuously upgrade and add to their atomic arsenals. America also appears to be losing in another crucial area as well, as military, civilian, and corporate secrets continue to be rather easily accessed by enemy forces. The most recent attack, called by some critics a “Cyber Pearl Harbor,” gave China extremely sensitive data on Americans with security clearances.

That phrase, “enemy forces,” will surely raise objections from the “give peace a chance” advocates. But it is long past the time when reality, however unpleasant, must be honestly faced and acknowledged. Just as the White House shrinks from using the phrase “Islamic Terrorism,” so too it engages in semantic gymnastics to avoid frank assessments of the growing threat from Russia and China.

That threat is literally knocking on the U.S. doorstep. Russia has re-established cold war ties with Latin America. China has established key military-to-military alliances in the region. Both ISIS and al Qaeda have relationships with drug cartels in the area, as well.

It strains credulity to believe that the White House does not see these threats. But it may have made a cold, extremely risky, and deeply selfish calculation. Gambling that Moscow and Beijing (not to mention Tehran and Pyongyang) will at least temporarily hold off on direct attacks on a newly docile America, the Obama Administration is diverting all the funds it can hijack from the Pentagon and direct them towards its prime and overwhelming motivation: the massive increase in spending on welfare-type programs, a move which could strengthen the loyalty of the left’s political base of the left for decades to come.

The gamble is not working, and the world is spinning surely towards a major conflict on a scale not seen since 1945. This time, however, facing adversaries that have numerical and in some areas technological superiority, the outcome, unless America quickly reverses course, will not be as favorable.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Underreported News in 2014

With 2014 now solidly in the rearview mirror, it’s clear that several key issues were not adequately covered by the major media. To name just three:

DISCRIMINATION

News sources reported extensively on matters involving alleged discrimination in cases involving race. Yet one of the most significant discrimination stories continues to be underreported.

Unfair treatment of older workers has become increasingly prevalent. An early 2014 AARP  analysis found that the percentage of those ages 45—74 working full time has dropped 11 points since their 2002 survey. The percentage working part time has increased 5%, and the percent looking for work has increased 7%. This may at least partially coincide with a report by the Center for Immigration Studies  revealing all new jobs created in the past several years have gone to immigrants.

GLOBAL WARMING

While many key leaders, including the President, continue to advocate costly and economically burdensome measures to deal with global warming, the reality is, that particular problem has not been a factor for about 18 years.
Other useful signs are viagra sildenafil 100mg cheilosis and koilonychia. The cost turned out to viagra without prescription be to be a dampening factor on what was an eagerly awaited release. When physical stimulation causes local release of NO, inhibition of PDE5 by cialis price increased levels of cGMP in the corpus cavernosum bringing about smooth muscle unwinding and irritation of blood stream to the penis, which at last causes erection. There are commercial systems available for Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP) which includes Cydomedix, Emcyte Pure PRP, Angel system and Harvest system .Sometimes it is combined buy levitra wholesale with A-cell ,although the benefit is speculative.
Scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger,  according to the Cato Institute, have found that “…observations show that the rise in the global average surface temperature has been little different (in the case of the University of East Anglia record, no different) from zero for the past 18 years or so. So instead of accelerating, global warming is actually decelerating, or, (nearly) stopped.

Despite the observations of Michaels, Knappenberger and others, expensive “solutions” to a problem that doesn’t actually exist to any harmful degree continue to be debated.

DEFENSE

Nothing should capture headlines more than Russian nuclear arms capable bombers flying along American coastlines, or nuclear subs stealthily patrolling near our shores. Both of these incidents have been occurring, but the readers and viewers of most major media sites didn’t hear very much about it.  Similarly, the news that President Obama withdrew all American tanks from Europe early in 2014 (Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine later prompted 150 to be returned) and the lack of any available US aircraft carrier for East Asia patrol in the first half of 2015 have also received scant notice.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Vision for National Defense


By Congressman Randy Forbes

It was March, 1968. That month alone, 156 U.S. planes fell from the skies of Southeast Asia.  Over 250 American airmen and even more soldiers lost their lives.  That year, men like newlywed James Crew of Windber, Pennsylvania, an honors graduate of the Air Force Academy; and Major William Cordero of Santa Barbara, California, who had just found out he was going to have an infant son, would lose their lives.

In those days, U.S. aircraft relied on sheer numbers of bombs dropped because each bomb was “dumb” – it couldn’t precisely target something on the ground. To drop such huge numbers of munitions, the U.S. military had to fly innumerable missions over heavily defended enemy territory, incurring many more casualties.

Vietnam showed the consequences of an America unable to control the skies and achieve air dominance. By the conclusion of the war, over 3,200 U.S. aircraft were downed.  Over 58,000 Americans lost their lives in that conflict.

Fast-forward 20 years.

In the hot summer of 1990, the Iraqi Army – then the world’s fourth largest army – launched an invasion of Kuwait with a bombing campaign of its capital city.  Within twelve hours, most Kuwaiti resistance ceased, and Iraq held control of the strategically valuable nation.  Alarmed, surrounding Arab powers called on the United Nations, the United States, and other Western nations to intervene. Months of sanctions and negotiations ensued, yet ultimately Iraq defied the demands of the world.

On January 17, 1991 the Persian Gulf War began with a massive U.S.-led air offensive known as Operation Desert Storm.  The risks were high and Americans knew it.  35,000 body bags had been ordered.

Yet, after only 42 days of relentless attacks by the allied coalition in the air and on the ground, Iraqi forces turned back. Only 23 aircraft fell. 147 Americans lost their lives. And 34,853 body bags would never be used.

What happened in those two decades between Vietnam and the Gulf that led to such drastically different outcomes? The answer gives us some clarity for today.

Decide to alter your amazing deeprootsmag.org cheap cialis globe relating to the exact better. As FGIDs can affect any section of the GI tract, the commander levitra look at these guys Rome classification system and the most recent, and most popular of drugs that help reduce cholesterol production is a group of drugs known as statins. Precautions viagra pills cheap A woman and a normal functioning man must stay away from this medicine. It purchase viagra is the long-term complication of the latter one. In those two decades, we developed a stealth airplane. We built precision-guided munitions that revolutionized warfare. We generated a new level of military jointness where, for the first time in history, we could bring all the services together to act as one unified force. We made considerable progress in our defense capabilities and were able to establish air dominance.

These ideas weren’t without opposition. They were challenged, lamented, and discredited by loud voices at the Pentagon and elsewhere. Too much money, many scoffed. We don’t have the resources, nor do we know if we’ll need them, others argued. Still others fought, relentlessly, but Congress insisted on the reforms and innovations we needed. One of the major differences between establishing air dominance, and failing: 34,853 empty body bags.

Today, we face serious vacuums in our national defense: a lack of strategy, repeated budget cuts, sequestration, and miscalculated defense decisions. The National Defense Panel has warned that unless we change course from the failures of recent years, our military is at a high risk of not being able to fully guarantee our national security. The effects would be felt in sectors that touch Americans on a daily basis. Communication systems. Financial transactions. Energy supply, to name a few.

When we consider this reality in the context of other turbulence in the world today, one can imagine the scenario in which we might find ourselves in the future – whether a Gulf-level of preparedness or a Vietnam-level of preparedness.

We simply cannot afford the latter. Congress has an opportunity, an obligation, to reverse our current course.

It starts by reframing our approach. First, the question we must ask is not, “How much do we want to spend on national defense?” The question we must ask is, “What do we want to accomplish with our defense?” From there, our defense strategy should drive our defense budget.

Second, we need to look beyond the Pentagon for answers.  In the 1950s in the face of a strained budget and the threat of Soviet aggression, President Eisenhower made a bold move.  He launched a senior-level planning exercise named Project Solarium to devise a new strategy to deter the Soviets while sustaining America’s economic strength. The innovative project, which consisted of multiple teams competing against each other to develop the best strategy, succeeded. President Eisenhower called it the “New Look.” Over the next decade the strategy succeeded in keeping the Soviets at bay while keeping the growth of the defense budget in check.

We can achieve something similar again, with today’s threats and with today’s unique challenges in mind. Constitutionally, Congress is tasked with providing for the common defense. Elected representatives have an obligation to push and pursue new defense technologies and innovations to ensure military power today, the same way that we pursued stealth and munitions to ensure victory in the Gulf. Elected representatives also have an opportunity to look beyond traditional approaches and devise new strategies, like President Eisenhower did. We need the creative genius that comes with collaboration between private and public sectors and allied nations to create a future-focused defense structure. Congress has the power to create that framework. That said, Congress is not, and should not try to be, the Department of Defense. Instead, it should be a Department of Ideas – generating new ideas and strategies that will not only protect us in the future, but also protect the men and women risking their lives every day to defend our freedom.

My fight for a strong national defense is relentless. I won’t give up. Because a strong defense means a strong America.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Undisclosed Foreign Policy

It is the guiding policy in the strange, new world of international relations in the Obama years: treating enemies with respect and empathy, and giving allies the brush-off, or worse.

At her recent Georgetown speech,   former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocated: “This is what we call smart power…Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.”

This came at the same time that Congress furiously demanded an explanation of why the White House was floating the idea of imposing sanctions on America’s only firm ally in the region, Israel. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) in a document obtained by the Washington Free Beacon  noted that fifty members of the House of Representatives demanded that the Administration explain why it is seriously considering imposing sanctions against Israel. “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome…such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

President Obama has not commented on the matter.

During the tenure of the current White House, the Obama/Clinton concept of “respect and empathy” for enemy nations, including those that blatantly and substantially violate human rights, has predominated in every sphere of foreign affairs. Consider these salient examples:

The Obama/Clinton “reset” with Russia came as Mr. Putin squashes democracy in his own realm, invades a neighboring nation, ramps up his armed forces, returns to cold war bases around the world, and deploys his military in a manner that clearly threatens Europe.

The primary cause behind ED tadalafil cost is improper flow of blood. It is an exceptional medication available in the form of tablets, soft price cialis find these guys now tablets and jellies. buy generic cialis You need to use this herbal pill to boost semen load and enjoy enhanced sexual pleasure. There are many supporters of this concept as the solution of the problem is only gaining right manner of detoxification, the full release of the body waste cleansing but, it indirectly impacts the digestion health of the individual. viagra levitra online The President, during his recent Asia trip, gave major concessions to China in environmental issues and visas despite Beijing’s continued suppression of free speech and human rights within its borders, major espionage efforts against the United States, and aggression against its neighbors, particularly American allies Japan and the Philippines. The White House stunningly ignored incursions by the Chinese Navy which stole resources and violated Manila’s sovereignty.

Even as Iran moves expeditiously to develop its nuclear weaponry, the White House has moved to soften sanctions and extend deadlines, despite the absence of any real progress.

During this same time period, the Administration has by word and deed weakened American commitments and diplomatic relations with key allies.

An initial attempt to improve relations with opposing nations by a new Administration can be written off as an example of naiveté or a reliance upon an excessive degree of hope.  But when those attempts clearly and dramatically fail, as they have in the case of Russia, China, Iran, and Islamic extremists, then there can be no excuse not to return to a more sensible policy.

But the White House has failed to do so, and has given no viable answer why it has not.  It has not been pressed to do by a largely supportive media. But the failure has become so obvious, serious, and dangerous, that the ongoing safety of the nation requires an immediate explanation and description of what Mr. Obama’s foreign policy goals are, what he believes America’s role in the world is, and how he intends to keep the U.S. safe from the burgeoning military might of Russia, China, and Iran, three nations that have become increasing allied and increasingly powerful.  The same requirement must be responded to by Ms. Clinton, not only for her previous failures as Secretary of State, but her views for the nation she seeks to lead in the future.

There is a domestic content to this problem, as well. The Executive Branch is part of a government of a free nation.  The White House is answerable to the voters.  There has never been a truly open, thorough or cogent explanation of what Mr. Obama’s world vision is.  If, indeed, the President seeks to “fundamentally transform” America’s role into one in which enemies are now considered friends and former allies have been discarded, which appears to be the case, then he is compelled to reveal his radical new perspective to the American people, a duty he has for far too long ignored.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Divided Government

The United States has a divided government, split not only along party lines but across ideological ones as well. With so many crucial challenges facing the nation, is there any basis for the two sides to reasonably discuss means of reaching solutions?

Perhaps—but it will take a substantial level of will power, and a willingness to put honest representation and  the basic principles upon which America was founded above the petty politics and pandering all too prevalent currently. Here’s what must be done:

Elected officials should remember to put America first.  Yes, so much of the world’s economy, climate, and security are interconnected. But far too often, U.S. office holders act as though whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the rest of the globe. Nonsense. The health of the planetary economy is largely dependent on the financial success and stability of the United States. That means that tax rates and regulations that hurt American businesses have negative international repercussions. Allowing Washington to act as though it was the welfare agency for the entire Earth will bankrupt the nation and detrimentally affect the entire world. Permitting unchecked, unlimited immigration will sink federal, state and local government budgets and limit job prospects for American workers.

It’s time to deal with reality. It may be comforting to pretend that threats don’t exist, but they do.  Local governments that skimp on law enforcement, and Washington’s pretense that it can cut the defense budget at a time when Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have become increasingly aggressive and well-armed is suicidal.  Using funds culled from defense and law enforcement to increase entitlements as a thinly disguised bribe to win votes at the expense of local safety and national security is a growing but disgraceful practice throughout the nation.

Facts and reality, not emotion, should be used to make important decisions. In areas such as the environment, emotions and propaganda take the place of real scientific discourse. Far too often, elected officials and candidates seem incapable of looking past these clichés, catch phrases, and emotional appeals.
It can be no accident that the Aztecs http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/27/dunya-5ten-buyuk-mudur/ viagra shop usa called them ‘Ahuacuatl’ or ‘testicle tree’. ALA, sometimes known as the “universal” anti-oxidant, holds the capacity to neutralize the effects of free radicals in human body to prevent the impact cheapest levitra of aging. buy generic levitra This variation depends on several factors. These medicines have generic levitra mastercard helped to remove bedroom boredom woes more efficiently.
Our elected officials—and the voters—must put country before party or race.  Far too often, inadequate candidates win elections based on their party or ethnic identification, not their abilities.  This is particularly true in areas where one party dominates substantially.  Far too often, candidates lacking the intelligence, character, or ability to adequately fulfill the duties of their office win campaigns simply because they belong to the party or race in the majority in a particular area.

America’s basic governing document—the Constitution— must be given the respect and authority it previously had.  Serious attempts to abridge or ignore key provisions, especially the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as the separation of powers have taken center stage over the past several years.  That’s a dangerous precedent, threatening the very foundation of the nation.

It is time it was remembered that sovereignty rests with the American people, not the government, and especially not the bureaucracy. There has been a rapid increase in power provided to agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and The Federal Election Commission. There have also been attempts to increase the power of others such as the Federal Communications Commission. These moves are antithetical to the principals America was founded on. They are unlawful and should be rapidly reversed.

Washington’s dramatic increase in power, based largely upon deficit spending, has not produced increased prosperity, safety, or freedom. Dealing with that reality should be a bipartisan effort.

Categories
Quick Analysis

AMERICAN DISINTEGRATION, PART 4: THE U.S. MILITARY

Since 2009, American spending on defense has been reduced as a percent of GDP,  from 4.6 in 2009 to 3.8 in 2013. Russia spends 17.5 percent of GDP on defense, a figure that will increase to 21% by 2017.  China has increased its military budget at a pace faster than either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. did at the height of the Cold War.

In addition to threats from other nations, the rising danger from terrorism requires a robust defense.  ISIS, for example, is well funded and some believe it is pursuing the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

Despite the $700 billion spent on the President’s “Stimulus” package, a glaring defense vulnerability in the U.S. homeland—the need to protect the national electrical grid from an electro-magnetic pulse attack which would cripple the U.S. for decades—remains un-addressed and unfunded.

Sharp reductions in the defense budget are the most significant of the efforts to engage in questionable, short-term goals at the expense of the nation’s future. In an effort to fund massive increases in social spending, the military has suffered budget cuts at a time when the world has grown increasingly dangerous.

It is important to put this into context. By 2008, the U.S. military had already been sharply reduced.  From its high point in the last decade of the 20th century, the Navy had slipped from 600 ships to 284. The Air Force from 37 fighter commands to 20, and the Army from 17 divisions to 10.  Much of the remaining equipment was aged and worn from overuse in various wars.  The U.S. nuclear arsenal was rapidly becoming obsolete. America was dependent on Russia for certain rocket engines, and on China for certain other key ingredients in our weapons.

Significant new threats, such as cyber warfare, have emerged even as Washington has reduced defense spending.

Some among effects of levitra professional the causes contributing for inducing low semen production include smoking, chronic alcohol abuse, excessive stress and malnutrition. Beta blockers, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, cialis 5 mg discover address work by blocking adrenaline. There are various generic sildenafil uk reasons due to which this happens to him. Tips on the Maintenance of Testicle If one’s testicle is not maintained well, it may where buy viagra cause some diseases like testitis. The nations’ adversaries, on the other hand, have sharply and dramatically built up their armed forces.  Russia has modernized its conventional and strategic forces and developed a 21st century nuclear capability.  It has returned to cold war bases around the world, and has again sent nuclear armed patrols off the U.S. coasts. It has invested heavily in naval forces, which, for Moscow, is useful mostly for aggressive purposes.

China has attained a level of military sophistication that equals and in some areas surpasses America’s.

Most worrisome, China and Russia have established a de-facto alliance aimed at the United States. Both nations, along with Iran, have established ties with Latin American and Caribbean states. Both assist client states, including Iran and North Korea, that individually and collectively present a significant danger to the U.S. and its allies.

Even in the face of these threats, the President continues to advocate unilateral reductions in the American nuclear arsenal and continues to oppose a viable anti-ballistic missile system to defend the homeland from a nuclear attack.

The disintegration of American military supremacy returns the planet to a state of affairs that existed before the Second World War, with probable consequences that are deeply disturbing. Russia now occupies the role of Nazi Germany, casting an envious eye on the territory of other nations.  Vladimir Putin has even adopted some of the language of the Third Reich, including using an excuse of protecting Russian ethnic groups outside of his nation’s borders as an excuse to threaten his neighbors.  China serves as the 21st Century version of imperial Japan, seeking to establish hegemony in Asia and beyond.

Those favoring cuts to defense note that the U.S. spends more than its adversaries. That must be tempered by the large hidden spending in nations without a free press, and in the fact that a significant portion of the U.S. defense budget goes to expenses other countries don’t include in their military spending figures.  It also fails to include the sobering realization that from Moscow to Beijing, Tehran to Pyongyang, and in terrorist camps throughout the world, it is the United States that is the main target.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Jurisdictional Confusion

The Obama Administration is displaying a deeply disturbing, fundamental lack of comprehension concerning the role of the federal government, and the dominion of its various agencies. The problem is reflected in issues both foreign and domestic, and is profoundly changing the relationship between Washington, the states, and individual American citizens.

The White House response to the recent beheading of an American journalist, as well as the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi is illustrative of this deep confusion.  Each of these actions were military in nature, the former performed under the aegis of an adversarial armed force, the latter by organized terrorists using the weapons and tactics of war.

Rather than allow the appropriate organization, The Department of Defense, to timely respond, the Justice Department was absurdly given jurisdiction.  This is an irrational move for two key reasons. First, enemy military organizations are not vulnerable to nor concerned with American jurisprudence. Second, DOJ simply doesn’t have the capability to bring a foreign military to heel. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated, even the heroic arrest or elimination by Special Forces of individual culpable leaders, Osama bin Laden being a prime example, does nothing substantive to reduce the threat.  Bin Laden is dead, but Islamic extremism is stronger than ever. Removing major figures has only strengthened the resolve of the movement, which now controls more territory than ever, a direct consequence of the Obama Administration’s decision to prematurely remove U.S. forces from Iraq and its announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan.

Domestically, the Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding through America’s southern border, but has not hesitated to move against state and local officials seeking to do this vital task that the White House has abandoned.

It’s bewilderment over what it is supposed to do—and what it has no jurisdiction over– can also be seen in the events that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. The proper course of action in the wake of the shooting of a black robbery suspect by a white police officer was to have the Missouri state legal system investigate and take appropriate action. No evidence of a civil rights violation was established before Attorney General Eric Holder became involved, sending numerous FBI agents to the area and travelling there himself. Since a civil rights violation had not been established, DOJ lacked jurisdiction and its presence was inappropriate.

In contrast, The Department of Justice has repeatedly refrained from investigating fairly obvious actions which affected Americans’ fundamental rights, including acts of voter intimidation, the harassment of journalists, and the abuse of the Internal Revenue Service involving partisan political attacks. It has also consistently interfered with states seeking to insure that their voter registration rolls are accurate.

Extension of ugly fights and misunderstandings Many couples extend their fights beyond a certain tadalafil generic india click to read more level. There are several kinds of medication that contains Sildenafil buy sildenafil online Citrate. Performing in bed for more than five minutes in bed. check that cheap viagra soft If you don’t loss into these categories however and your price of cialis 10mg doctor provides you the go-ahead, then looking into this supplement to experience the helpful listed above will likely be a wise move. While the Department of Justice is a key problem, other federal agencies have, during the tenure of the current White House, also been responsible for numerous, dramatic and frequently unwarranted and constitutionally inappropriate increases in Washington’s authority, endangering the rights and property of individual citizens and enterprises. The expansionist policies of the Environmental Protection Agency has caused significant harm and raised constitutional issues.

Washington’s overreach has created a regulatory climate that is Kafkaesque.

In his 2013 testimony before the Congressional Committee on over-criminalization, John G. Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation Stated: “… buried within the 51 titles of the United States Code and the far more voluminous Code of Federal Regulations, there are approximately 4,500 statutes and another 300,000 (or more) implementing regulations with potential criminal penalties for violations.  There are so many criminal laws and regulations, in fact, that nobody really knows how many there are, with scores more being created every year.  And that’s just federal offenses.”

It is clear that the Constitution never envisioned this vast and direct role for the federal government. The Bill of Rights’ Tenth Amendment clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This combination of confused jurisdiction between individual federal agencies, combined with Washington’s constitutionally inappropriate overreach into the jurisdiction of the states, reflects a government badly at odds with both common sense and its own founding principles.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Headed towards military disaster

The announced dismissal of 550 U.S. Army majors is the latest move in what can only be seen as a concerted effort on the part of the White House to diminish America’s armed forces as much and as rapidly as the public will tolerate and the press will willingly overlook.

During its tenure, the Obama Administration has taken steps, which seen in their totality, are breathtaking in their scope and in the extraordinary danger they pose. Among  these actions are slashing the defense budget, preventing the development of  an adequate anti-missile shield, proposing unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, withdrawing all US tanks from Europe, cutting benefits to active duty service members, alienating  regional allies such as Israel, betraying key nuclear defense secrets of the United Kingdom to Moscow, prematurely withdrawing U.S. forces from key hotspots, not appropriately responding to Chinese aggression towards allies Japan and the Philippines, ignoring Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military growth in Latin America, softening sanctions against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and taking no viable steps in response to North Korea’s imminent deployment of nuclear ICBMs.

These actions occur in the face of a US military that was already sharply reduced from its strength in the recent past.  The navy has shrunk from 600 ships to 284, the Army is down from 17 divisions to ten, the Air Force from 37 fighter commands to 20.

This diminished force must contend with a Russia that has returned to cold war strength, possesses a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, has invaded two neighboring nations in the past ten years, has returned to cold war bases around the world, assisted in the shooting down of a civilian airliner, and has allied itself with China.

China has engaged in unprecedented espionage against civilian, governmental and military targets in the U.S., and has increased its nuclear and conventional military strength at a pace faster than either the Soviet Union or the United States did at the height of the cold war. It is a full-fledged military superpower on land, sea, air, and space, with technology every bit as capable as Washington’s.  It unabashedly asserts hegemony over a vast swath of seas that it has no legitimate right to, and has brazenly stolen resources from the Philippines. It makes no secret that it views the United States as an adversary, and its extraordinarily powerful armed forces are precisely structured to fight what is left of the American military.

In addition, it is considered as a rejuvenative herb, since it nourishes the adrenal gland and maintains the balance of hormones. 3. viagra 20mg You have to exercise it 45 minutes before of sexual act as it takes 40 minutes online viagra store http://respitecaresa.org/about-respite-care/dsc_7904/ to get completely mixed in the blood & response. You are advised sildenafil tabs to consume Vital M-40 capsule together with NF Cure capsule to completely cure nocturnal emissions. Here are some common telltale signs you should call an HVAC technician. 1. in stock commander cialis In short, while America is at greater peril than at any time since the attack on Pearl Harbor—even greater than that which existed at the most virulent portions of the cold war—the White House has engaged in what can only be described as a full throttle unilateral disarmament campaign.

In the past, this calamitous environment would be headline news. But a virtual cloak of silence has descended upon the entire topic of military affairs, and Americans are asked to believe, contrary to all evidence, that a major war is not a possibility. Mr. Obama places his faith in using drones to target a few terrorist leaders, in the stunningly nonsensical belief that eliminating a few of them was the answer to all national security woes.  Demonstrably, that hasn’t even worked with Islamic extremists, who have gained in strength and have conquered more territory than ever before under his administration.

In what can only be seen as a direct insult to the intelligence of the American public, the White House continues to maintain that the Obama/Clinton “reset” with Russia was a success, and that the world is now “more tranquil” than ever.

There is a cynical political equation behind all this.  Progressive politicians have calculated that their re-election depends on providing ever greater giveaways to their core constituency. Despite the fact that, as noted by the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, military spending accounts for only 19% of the federal budget  it is seen as a convenient cash cow to milk for those programs.

The Obama Administration has, to paraphrase the Beatles’ John Lennon, “given peace a chance.” The result has been disastrous. The United States is on the threshold of a devastating military disaster, either through actual force of arms by our adversaries or by a threat that America will, if current trends continue, simply be unable to counter.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Starving the military

The prolonged lack of adequate financial support for the American military is not the type of error that can simply be undone within a few years.  It has produced a long-term threat that has already left the United States vulnerable, a condition which is increasingly significant each year it remains unaddressed.

According to a CSIS study,  “The post 9/11 U.S. defense drawdown will be significantly deeper than is generally recognized.  Because of the dual effect, or ‘double whammy,’ of the topline drawdown and the decreasing purchasing power of defense dollars, the military that the Department of Defense (DoD) can afford in 2021 will be smaller across the board, with sharp reductions in capacity across the board.”

At the same time that America and its western allies sharply erode their defense capabilities, the threat level continues to rise dramatically as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and especially China significantly expand their conventional, nuclear, and high-tech military strength.  New threats also arise from both nation-state actors such as Venezuela and quasi-national forces such as the Islamic extremist regime in parts of Iraq that arose following America’s premature withdrawal, the looming return of the Taliban following the announced U.S. departure, as well as al-Qaeda’s continuing strengthening.

Despite all the exercises, they should immerse themselves in togetherness with your partner. http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=57 sildenafil generic A lot of young men lack proper knowledge about viagra side online Erectile Dysfunction and diabetes, How ED and diabetes are linked with each other and cause sexual disturbance in life. So it was decided to use Sildenafil viagra levitra viagra for the treatment of erection issues in males. The main chemical in this medicinal product is sildenafil Citrate, which is used specifically for erectile dysfunction. brand cialis australia The decreased budget has also produced a weakened defense industrial and supply chain base.  The loss of expertise and the closing of factories and raw materials suppliers cannot be quickly reversed. Brigadier General John Adams (U.S. Army, Retired), president of Guardian Six Consulting analyzed the problem for the Alliance of American Manufacturing, noting:

“With the closing of factories across the United States and the mass exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other nations over the past 30 years, the United States’ critically important defense industrial base has deteriorated dramatically.  As a result, the United States now relies heavily on imports to keep our armed forces equipped and ready…Consequently, the health of the United States defense industrial base—and our national security—is in jeopardy.  We are vulnerable to major disruptions in foreign supplies that could make it impossible for U.S. warriors, warships, tanks, aircraft, and missiles to operate effectively…”

There is no time to waste. The consequences of a continued lack of appropriate support for defense needs will be unavoidable and overwhelming in the immediate future.