Russian – USA Gov Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Within roughly the same time period, the two nations who have consistently produced the most violent anti-American rhetoric have made major strides in their ability to strike the U.S. homeland.

Iran’s defense minister Hossein Dehqan announced this month that a long-range surface-to-surface missile named ‘Emad,’ (Pillar) a new generation of ballistic missile built within Iran was test-fired successfully. The test is in violation of United Nations Resolution 1929, which forbids Tehran from ballistic missile testing. An additional resolution connected to the nuclear deal also forbids this activity.

Tehran’s advance was matched by North Korea’s recent announcement that a new version of its KN-08 missile is fully capable of striking the American mainland.

It has long been known that the Iran and North Korea have shared military technology.

The basic news about the two tests are worrisome in and of themselves, but there is an even greater danger posed by the fact that Russia and China appear to be intimately involved in Iran’s growing power, and neither have taken steps to rein in North Korea, which is heavily dependent on Beijing.

In August, it was reported that a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif resulted in an agreement to expand military cooperation between the two nations, including Russian delivery of anti-aircraft S-300 missiles to Iran. It has long been known that Moscow has supplied nuclear technology to Tehran.

The Iranian government is also benefiting from close ties with China. The Iranian News Agency reported that China has stated that Iran is a “strategic partner for international cooperation.”
It works by improving blood flow to the penile area. cheapest viagra tablets Yoga and meditation can help men to achieve a firm cheap tadalafil uk and long lasting erection. Online solution helps in dealing with quick completion of issue of erection as online buying doesn’t buy cheap cialis require completion of the prescription form. Kamagra helps an ED patient suffering from the following conditions: heart disease, Peyronie’s disease, retinitis pigmentosa, heart rhythm problems, bleeding disorders, coronary artery disease, liver or kidney diseases, stomach ulcers, high or low blood pressure and depression. soft cialis online
A Stanford study on Russian-Iranian relations notes that

“geopolitics and the desire for hegemony constitute another of the connective threads in Russian-Iranian relations…while the Islamic Republic of Iran was engaged in negotiations with the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the fate of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, it was Russia (usually helped by China) that successfully blocked development of a joint policy and the passage of a United Nations resolution against Iran…

“Nuclear power is not the only element of the new relationship between Iran and Russia…Russia and Iran are especially interested in a US attempt to build a pipeline that would connect Central Asian gas fields to Europe. The pipeline would end the Russian monopoly hold on Europe’s gas markets—a monopoly hold that Putin has been increasingly willing to use for politicial purposes. Furthermore, US plans for the pipeline stipulate that it bypass Iran. As a result, the Islamic Republic and Russia have become inadvertent allies in averting the construction of the pipeline. The two countries have even begun talking about creating, together with Algeria, an OPEC-like cartel of gas-producing countries of the world.”

China’s role in the new four-power alliance is vital. Douglas Schoen and Melik Kaylan, in their book “The Russia-China Axis,” report that:

“China does business with Iran [and] singlehandedly props up a North Korean regime that seems to be ever more volatile and dangerous. The Chinese have refused to discourage Pyongyang from building up its stockpile of nuclear warheads or from developing even more sophisticated and deadly nuclear weapons…While China positions itself as a supporter of sanctions against North Korea, it does nothing to help enforce them. At heart, China doesn’t want the North Korean problem resolved. An intimidating, unpredictable North Korea keeps South Korea in check and the Americans off-balance in the Far East, while terrifying such staunch American allies as Japan and the Philippines. This is all to the good, from the Chinese perspective…China’s facilitation is also essential to perhaps the most disturbing alliance of all: the long-running Iran-North Korea ‘axis of proliferation’…All of these efforts are part of a broader Russian-Chinese goal: to build a counter-Western alliance of antidemocratic nations.”

Both Iran and North Korea, who profit economically and militarily from their relationships with Moscow and Beijing, are gaining the military technology, both conventional and nuclear, to engage in acts which distract the United States and its allies, and that deters western powers from countering Russian and Chinese aggression. There is a distinct possibility that Tehran and Pyongyang could at some point act as surrogates for Moscow and Beijing should those two decide to engage in direct assaults on western interests without taking the blame for their actions.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/