protest – USA Gov Policy

There is a difference between protest and insurrection. Protestors believe that the system is being abused or not properly followed. Insurrectionists want to replace the current system.

What is occurring in Ferguson is insurrection. There is no evidence that the actions by the police officer charged in the shooting death of Michael Brown, who had just robbed a store, was anything but self-defense. However, that doesn’t matter to the insurrectionist crowd, who wish to use the incident as further means to fundamentally attack the constitutional government of the United States.

It is, indeed, the whole concept of a government based on a constitution providing individual freedom and the separation of powers to prevent tyranny that is on the battle lines recently, from the streets of Ferguson to the Oval Office, where the President dismisses the legitimate role of Congress, and even in the Supreme Court, where one Obama appointee stated during her nominating process that she didn’t believe in the concept of unalienable rights, and another stated that if she were designing a government today she wouldn’t use the U.S. Constitution as a model.

What continues to be missing from the rhetoric of the insurrectionists, or progressives as they prefer to be called, is what they would substitute for the current governing model. That description is missing because they know their concept would be instantly condemned by the overwhelming majority. It is most succinctly stated by Jonathon Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, who has expressed his view that Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them. The Progressive model is not new. It is the concept that the great majority of people are too ignorant, undisciplined and just plain bad to govern themselves, so they must have a group of self-proclaimed geniuses to run their lives.

This excuse has been used by monarchs and dictators since the beginning of history. It is becoming increasingly prevalent among American progressives today. One ludicrous example can be seen in individuals who seek to enact measures dictating what people can eat, and politicians, bureaucrats and pundits who offer a variety of reasons to abridge or eliminate the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, virtually gutting the Bill of Rights.
The tablet should be consumed with the full glass of online prescription viagra without milk. With the help http://valsonindia.com/about-us/company-profile/?lang=it tadalafil without rx of BIM, collaborating designers and engineers can in short order make more informed and better coordinated decisions about to what extent a dysfunctional old building should be preserved, remedied or replaced. Often times this role is filled by the child who is just starting to drive, you know the importance of breathing the right way to belt out a tune,but what about daily breathing techniques for general health? Chiropractors, Doctors of Chiropractic, regularly treat patients suffering levitra sale from chronic pain and other non-resolving health issues. This 4 compound goes swiftly into the system around training times which has shown in numerous studies that this dosage will eliminate nearly all of the valsonindia.com prescription free levitra tuberculosis germs a minimum of six months.
Since these concepts cannot succeed at the ballot box if openly stated, they are hidden under a variety of tactics. Details of legislation that would raise serious objections are obscured. Former Speaker Pelosi’s extraordinary comment that “We won’t know what’s in the bill (Obamacare) until we pass it” is a prime example. What can’t be enacted at all legislatively is often implemented through bureaucracy, or by President Obama’s unconstitutional attempt to by pass Congress in clear defiance of the Constitution.

Dishonesty is the bulwark and major weapon of the Progressive movement. When the truth rears its head, Progressives must slap it down. Consider journalists, such as Sharyl Attkinson, who continue to be harassed or dismissed when they challenge the prevailing and fraudulent orthodoxy of the Progressive leadership, or scientists who question the misrepresentation of data that has been abused to further the progressive agenda. It is greatly noticeable in many universities, where free speech is rapidly becoming an endangered species for non-leftist students.

The Ferguson incident is a true bonanza for the Progressive movement, taking real issues such as the Obama Administration’s utter failures in the realms of the economy and foreign affairs off the front pages. The encouragement of disunity–blacks vs. whites, men vs. women, young vs. old—is the current incarnation of the time-honored tactic of distract, divide and conquer.

So many of the headline stories dominating the news today fall into this category.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.