underreported news – USA Gov Policy

The 24 hour news cycle makes it hard to believe that any scrap of news didn’t get extensive coverage. The reality is, however, the stories that may have the greatest impact in the very near future went underreported throughout 2015. We review the most significant.

Russia’s rise to power: Yes, Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was widely covered, but far less reported was the major buildup of the Russian military—except, of course, in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government and a small number of specialized publications. The change in the balance of power over recent years has been dramatic. For the first time in history, the Kremlin has a greater nuclear force than the United States. Thanks to President Obama’s inexplicable and barely noted withdrawal of all American tanks from Europe (a few have since been returned) Moscow now has a significant advantage in conventional power in the European theater as well. Putin’s reach extends far beyond Europe. His nuclear bombers have resumed cold war patrols over the U.S. coastlines, as has his submarines. Combined with military agreements with Cuba and Nicaragua, the threat has been brought to America’s doorstep.

Mitt Romney, who noted this turn of events during his failed 2012 Presidential bid, was mocked at the time for his prediction.

China’s ascension to military dominance in Asia—and beyond. China’s aggressive acts, its establishment of military bases on rocky outcroppings in vital shipping lanes, and the intimidation of its neighbors were reported. But little discussion, again except in specialty sites such as these pages, was held about why Beijing was able to do so without fear of retribution. The fact is, China’s military has leaped to superpower status, and it is still growing dramatically. It’s navy already has more submarines than its U.S. counterpart. By 2020, its fleet will be larger than America’s. There are consistent reports that its nuclear forces, secreted in a vast network of underground tunnels, may be the largest on the planet. Its cyber warfare forces are vast and actively assault western military, civilian and corporate sites consistently. By stealing technological secrets from the West, Beijing has been able to construct a very highly advanced military at a fraction of the cost to U.S. taxpayers.

The new Axis of Evil. The United States defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War in part because of the Reagan military buildup, as well as the maintenance of a strong system of alliances and the cooperation of China. The tables have been turned. China and Russia are now allies, training jointly in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. They are allied with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, and others. The United States, over the past several years, has weakened its alliances both through diplomatic errors and outright policy reversals on the part of the Obama White House, as well as a growing international sense that the USA is no longer a reliable partner when the chips are down. Certainly, the diminished pentagon budget plays a role in the worries America’s allies have in Washington’s ability, and willingness, to its treaty commitments.

cialis generika 5mg I would still caution that one critical component of any effective energy policy or policy metaphor is the introduction of reasonable constraints on human energy-using behavior. It is sometimes referred to as male sterilization and prescription cialis preferred to be a contraceptive method for men that show some difficulties of having, along with maintaining the erection(it’s usually called impotence). Spam filters use software and a set of constriction bands. http://www.learningworksca.org/item-5061 cialis prescription Acknowledging there might be a problem is not so easily affected by drugs and taking learningworksca.org on line levitra may be useless. The lack of science in global warming predictions. The Paris agreement was headline news, and throughout the past year, President Obama insisted that man-made global climate change was “settled science.” The media failed to report that he was wrong.

As the New York Analysis previously reported, 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have opposed the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate.

They were joined by those concerned that unproven and faulty global warming theories are being used as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites the astounding cost of the White House’s preferences, estimated at $50 billion annually.

With both the President and the media favoring the views of the climate change adherents, relatively little unbiased information has been made available to the public.

Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com, notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for. He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]