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.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Huge growth in regulation imperils freedom

The impact of the astronomical growth of the federal government’s bureaucracy is becoming increasingly evident and worrisome. The cost can not only be counted in dollars, but in the shrinking rights of the citizenry.

An example can be seen in the Environmental Protection Agency’s addition to the Clean Waters Act. Under this draconian provision, 60% of water, including, absurdly, ponds and irrigation ditches on private property fall under the EPA’s control.

While this problem has been growing for decades, it has accelerated to an unprecedented degree under the Obama Administration and moved into many areas, such as free speech, which go to the very core of citizen rights. The President’s attempts to put monitors in newsrooms and his transfer of the Internet from private to government control are the most noticeable examples.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Opportunity for All” report notes that “in the five years following President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, 15,794 new rules were published in the federal register, of which 403 were classified as major.”

“In his January 2014 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama vowed to wield his executive powers when faced with congressional resistance to his legislative agenda: ‘America does not stand still—and neither will I’, he said. ‘So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation … that’s what I am going to do.’ This provocative declaration was startling in its bluntness, but it was hardly a new policy.

“During its first five years, the Obama Administration aggressively exploited regulation to get its way. Issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually, this Administration is very likely the most regulatory in U.S. history. Of course, preceding Administrations also have increased regulation, albeit to a lesser degree. And regulatory overreach by the executive branch is only part of the problem. Congress, too, is a major culprit. Lawmakers routinely delegate their policy-making powers to regulatory agencies. Furthermore, much of the red tape imposed over the past five years has been driven by “independent” agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which are outside direct presidential control.

“From finance to telecommunications, these agencies have added to the regulatory tide swamping American businesses and families. And there are many more regulations to come; agencies have identified 120 additional major rules they intend to work on, including dozens linked to the 2010 Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and Obamacare. Of particular concern is that the FCC has launched yet another attempt to regulate Internet traffic. Reforms of the regulatory process are critically needed. Among these: requiring congressional approval before any new major regulation takes effect, requiring analyses of the regulatory consequences of all proposed legislation before a vote by Congress is held, setting sunset deadlines in law for all major regulations, and including ‘independent’ agencies in the White House regulatory review process.”

Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute  has written that the Administrative bureaucracy has grown so large that it now constitutes an entire “extralegal” government. He believes that “aspects of America’s legal system have become lawless” since whole portions of this administrative structure are used not for appropriate law enforcement but to achieve the social and political goals of bureaucrats. He notes in his new book “By The People” that the Code of Federal Regulations increased from 22,877 pages in 1960 to 174,545 pages in 2012.

Murray also points out that if you disagree with any of these rules, which you as a citizen had no real say in their development, in most cases your only recourse is to appeal to the very agency that you disagree with.

Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute  outlines the facts that describe this challenge:

  • Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  • If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  • Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  • The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  • Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  • Some 60 federal departmentsagencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history. Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.
  • The George W. Bush administra­tion averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.But it’s not just official federal issues that are affected.  As Charles Murray points out, “Federal funds account for about a quarter of state and local revenues. Some large proportion of state and local employees are, for practical purposes, federal employees.

The chief distinguishing factor for the super active blue pill that in a way boosts the sexual energy and stamina of free viagra 100mg the man, who is indulged completely in to sexual copulation. Iverson was absent from most of the 76ers regular season games; his 4-year-old daughter, Messiah, was diagnosed with an undisclosed disease early this year and has been ill for some time now. viagra 5mg uk This natural effect from the aging and should not be confused with either cialis uk a loss in sexual attraction, sexual disinterest or ED. If it world not cheap, the branded mastercard generic viagra greyandgrey.com would not be replaced and Kamagra would not get so much adornment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sharia practices incompatible with Western culture

As Muslim minorities continue to grow in influence throughout the United States and Europe, demands for the use of Sharia Law expand. It is vital to understand how distant are the practitioners of the radical interpretation that philosophy’s tenets, who unfortunately hold sway currently, from modern western thought.

Their practices regarding women and minority populations have been a continuous record of human rights violations. The Gatestone Institute  notes  “terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or “wives;” conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious …The religious and historical experiences of the Western world and the Islamic world are so enormously different that they ended up having completely different cultures and values.

“The West, established on Jewish, Christian and secular values, has created a far more humanitarian, free and democratic culture. Sadly, much of the Muslim world, under Islamic sharia law, has created a misogynistic, violent and totalitarian culture. This does not mean that the West has been perfect and sinless. … The West, however, accepts responsibility for the failures in its own territories …Ever since the seventh century, Muslim armies have invaded and captured Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands; for more than 1400 years since, they have continued their jihad, or Islamic raids, against other religions….

“Some of the things that women in Saudi Arabia may not do were listed in The Week magazine: Saudi women are not allowed to “go anywhere without a male chaperone, open a bank account without their husband’s permission, drive a car, vote in elections, go for a swim, compete freely in sports, try on clothes when shopping, enter a cemetery, read an uncensored fashion magazine and buy a Barbie and so on….

“Muslim groups and regimes continue to persecute indigenous peoples such as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Mandaeans, Shabaks, Copts, Yezidis, and Bedoon, among many others.” A substantial segment of the Bedoon population lives with the constant threat of deportation hanging over it,” according to the analyst Ben Cohen. “Around 120,000 Bedoon live without nationality and with none of the rights that flow from citizenship.”

Time magazine  reports “Family law in Islamic countries generally follows the prescriptions of scripture. …In Islam, women can have only one spouse, while men are permitted four. The legal age for girls to marry tends to be very young. … The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them… In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to 14, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. …Wives in Islamic societies face great difficulty in suing for divorce, but husbands can be released from their vows virtually on demand, in some places merely by saying “I divorce you” three times. Though in most Muslim states, divorces are entitled to alimony, in Pakistan it lasts only three months, long enough to ensure the woman isn’t pregnant. The same three-month rule applies even to the Muslim minority in India.

The Clarion Project’s examination of marital rights in fundamentalist Islamic views  notes thatAlthough various opinions exist regarding Islamic marriage laws, the following constants remain:

  • A man is entitled to up to four wives, but a woman may only have one husband. In Western societies, a man typically only takes one wife.
  • The husband (or his family) pays a “bride price” or “dower” (mahr, which is money or property paid to the bride) which she is entitled to keep. This “mahr” is in exchange for sexual submission (tamkin). Sexual submission is traditionally regarded as unconditional consent for the remainder of the marriage.
  • A man can divorce his wife by making a declaration (talaq) in front of an Islamic judge irrespective of the woman’s consent. Even her presence is not required. For a woman to divorce a man (khula), his consent is required.
  • The husband is responsible for the financial upkeep of home (nafaqa).
  • “Temporary marriage” (even for less than a half an hour) is allowed by some scholars, others regard it as a form of prostitution. A report by the Gatestone Institute charts its development in Britain.
  • Wife beating permitted according to some scholars.
  • There is no joint property; the man owns all property, (except for what the woman owned before the marriage).
  • There is no specific minimum age for marriage, but most agree a woman must have reached puberty. Marriage as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries. In Yemen in 2013, there was a highly publicized case of an eight-year-old girl who died of internal injuries suffered on her wedding night.According to Al Jazeera, “Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls [are] married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18.” The case prompted calls for Yemen to pass a law setting a minimum age for marriage, although it has not yet done so.

Sometimes the cialis price next page man fails to do so due to erectile dysfunction. Vigrx plus is considered as the best pills cheap cialis canada for amazing sexual life because it provides many benefits. Another problem with air conditioning machines are accumulation of water under the front portion cialis no rx of the men have unfavorably susceptible response against the utilization of this medication. When there is no proper blood flow to viagra no prescription regencygrandenursing.com the penile area.
“Muslim Feminists such as Dr. Elham Manea argue that the interpretation of sharia in the area of marriage amounts to discrimination, the type of which is prohibited under Western legal systems.”

One of the most heinous chapters of Western history, the enslavement of blacks, has significant ties with the practices of Islam, which in some quarters continues its tolerance of the terrible practice of human bondage.

The Atlanta Black Star  notes “Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world…

As casual association with Black skin and slave began to be established, racist attitudes towards Blacks began to manifest in Arabic language and literature. The word for slave – Abid – became a colloquialism for African. Other words such as Haratin express social inferiority of Africans…

The eastern Arab slave trade dealt primarily with African women, maintaining a ratio of two women for each man. These women and young girls were used by Arabs and other Asians as concubines and menials.

A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. Filling the harems of wealthy Arabs, African women bore them a host of children. This abuse of African women would continue for nearly 1, 200 years. The Arab slave trade was the longest yet least discussed of the two major slave trades. It began in seventh century as Arabs and other Asians poured into northern and eastern Africa under the banner of Islam. The Arab trade of Blacks in Southeast Africa predates the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years. Some scholars say the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another up until the 1960s, however, slavery in Mauritania was criminalized as recently as August 2007.”

The practice of slavery is a major ongoing characteristic of ISIS and its affiliate,  Boko Haram.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Debunking the myth of western colonialism as an excuse for Islamic terrorism

Muslim extremists frequently attempt to justify their numerous atrocities and acts of aggression by citing alleged past injuries at the hands of foreign powers. The actual historic record tends to indicate that, since the fall of the Roman Empire, aggression at the hands of Arab powers has been far more prevalent than the reverse.

James Arlandson, writing in the American Thinker, disputes the European colonialism excuse

“Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic—and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law  around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.”

The Gatestone Institute reports: “Every time the ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, or any terrorist group in the Muslim world is discussed, many people tend to hold the West responsible for the devastation and murders they commit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blaming the failures in the Muslim world on Western nations is simply bigotry and an attempt to shift the blame and to prevent us from understanding the real root cause of the problem.”

Sources not aligned with the United States or its NATO allies agree. The Russian news source rt.com  notes: “Muslims must stop blaming Western foreign policy, Islamophobia and online grooming for radicalization and should start taking responsibility for their community, according to the chairman of the Muslim Forum.”

A Redstate  analysis reveals:

You tell yourself that maybe it was always that way – viagra without prescription the car is, after all, no longer new. Scientists and medics have been working on developing the highly innovative, next generation cheapest cialis india pills is known to have a rejuvenating effect on your liver. Remember, these factors are necessary but may not sildenafil cheapest price be sufficient space for one-on-one activities with a class of medications known as Pde5 inhibitors. One such pill is Kamagra, which helps you boost your flow of blood and release semen’s that would help you enjoy powerful orgasms. buy cialis http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Approved-Minutes-2-21-17.pdf “…when Islam first arose, much of what we think of today as Islamic ‘territory’ in Anatolia, the Levant and North Africa was Christian until conquered by the heirs of Muhammad, such that speaking of one side’s incursions into the other’s territory requires you to ignore how that territory was seized in the first place. That entire region had been part of the Roman and later Byzantine empires, and was culturally part of the West until it was conquered by Muslim arms – Rome is closer geographically to Tripoli than to London, Madrid is closer to Casablanca than to Berlin, Athens is closer to Damascus than to Paris.

“All that said, it’s worth remembering that the Crusades arose in the late Eleventh Century only after four centuries of relentless Islamic efforts to conquer Europe, and the Christians of the Crusading era cannot be evaluated without that crucial context…

“Starting in the middle of the Seventh Century, when Islam was still mostly united under a single political entity, you begin to see Islamic incursions into Europe (including Constantinople, which was effectively one of the leading European cities at the time) – and from there, the conquests and attempted conquests marched on. If you look on a map over this period, you see an almost continuous line of advance on Europe from all sides but the north – from Spain and France in the west to Italy in the center to Constantinople in the east to the frontiers of Georgia in the Caucasus, with the islands of the Mediterranean on the front lines…”

What of the much-discussed period of modern European colonialism in the region? According to The Gatestone Institute:

“European Empires — the British, French and Italians — had a short-lived presence in North Africa and the Middle East compared with the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over that region for more than 500 years,” said the historian Niall Ferguson.…Muslim states continue to occupy and colonize various territories — including Kurdistan, Baluchistan and the northern part of Cyprus, an EU member state.”One of the most tragic consequences of the 1974 Turkish invasion [of Cyprus] ,” according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, “and the subsequent illegal occupation of 36.2% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, is the violent and systematic destruction of the cultural and religious heritage in the occupied areas.”

There are no justifiable excuses for atrocities or aggression. The Muslim extremist excuse of western colonialism bears the further handicap of being historically inaccurate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to deal with Russia

On June 23, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee,  Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx)  delivered a major address to the Atlantic Council outlining how the United States should deal with Russia. The following are the key points.

Looking back from the perspective of 70 years, two well-known warnings of 1946 were amazingly perceptive and prescient, and I believe that they can continue to enlighten us today in our struggle with one of the new faces of tyranny that we confront.

George Kennan had clashed with superiors who were not ready to hear the realities driving Soviet Russia. In response to inquiries from the Treasury and State Departments, he sent back a cable discussing what lay underneath Soviet actions and motivations in the famous Long Telegram on February 22, 1946. He wrote, “At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” . . . And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.” Less than two weeks later, on March 5, 1946, a foreign politician then in opposition gave a speech which shook up public opinion about our wartime ally. Winston Churchill told an audience in Fulton, Missouri, which included President Truman, “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” “From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.” These insights, among others, helped guide our approach to dealing with the Soviet Union until its collapse…

… But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of us thought and hoped that without the ideology of communism, Russia would enter the community of nations as a responsible, constructive participant. Just as Churchill and Roosevelt were misled by Stalin, we have been disappointed. Perhaps we underestimated something deeper in the Russian psyche, which Kennan pointed out pretty clearly.

Despite the growing warning signs, by the time the Obama Administration took office, it followed a very different approach toward Russia than one guided by the insights of Kennan and Churchill. Within the first month, Vice President Biden said it was “time to press the reset button” with Russia, and shortly Secretary of State Clinton was off to deliver an actual, if mistranslated, button. Later that year, the President canceled the Third Site missile defense plan, surprising our allies, the Poles and Czechs. The next year, the President announced that he had concluded that “the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle” to reaching agreements with the Russians. Among other milestones was the famous microphone that picked up the President telling Russian President Medvedev, that “all these issues, but particularly missile defense, can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space. . . . After my election I have more flexibility.”

We saw that flexibility later as the U.S. backed away a second time from missile defense plans that aggravated Moscow.

We also, at that time, began to cut our defense spending. Meanwhile a new government in Ukraine did not want to live under Moscow’s thumb, leading to the invasion and annexation of Crimea, then invasion and occupation of portions of eastern Ukraine. It is in many ways the most significant breach of European borders since the end of World War II. Our response has been primarily economic sanctions and additional training exercises.

But the Administration, along with some of our European allies, has so far refused to provide the weapons the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. Lenin is often quoted as saying, “Probe with bayonets. If you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw.” It seems that Mr. Putin and those around him do not see economic sanctions as steel.

How stand things today? The Russian defense budget is increasing about 10% despite the economic sanctions with most of the money going to procurement. While the limits on “strategic” launchers and warheads are equal for us under the New Start treaty, Russia is modernizing both, including 2 new land-based ICBM’s, 2 new submarine launched ballistic missiles, a new class of SSBN’s, a new long range cruise missile, with other ICBMs and cruise missiles in development.

All the while, they continue to manufacture new nuclear warheads and maintain roughly 10 times the number of tactical nuclear warheads that we do. The Russian military openly discusses doctrinal changes which have broadened the circumstances under which they would use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, they are in violation of the INF treaty, as well as other international agreements. Ukraine is not the only place we see aggressive, confrontational behavior as Russian aircraft and ships conduct provocative maneuvers rarely seen even at the height of the Cold War. In no area are they more aggressive than in propaganda, both internally and with neighboring countries.

Visiting Eastern Europe, one hears a lot about the massive, relentless misinformation campaign coming from Moscow. And when it comes to Ukraine, there seems no limit to the lies and extensive efforts to cover up the truth of direct Russian military involvement. Even on the political front media reports evidence that Russia helps finance green protest and anti-fracking movements in Europe, while providing employment for former European officeholders. The dominant topic of the Munich Security Conference this year was hybrid warfare, which refers to a variety of tactics and deceptions to advance a nation’s goals and to complicate any response from the other side. The Russians are not the only adversary using these tactics, but they pose special challenges, especially when some allies are all too willing to look for excuses not to act…

So in summary, the next President will have sitting on his or her desk a situation in which the one country that could pose an existential threat to the United States has growing military capabilities, a growing willingness to use them, a string of provocative actions and outright aggression, along with brazen deception as a matter of government policy without much of an effective response.

And that it just one of the many national security threats and challenges facing the U.S. What should we do? 535 Members of Congress cannot devise or implement national security strategy. What we can do is help clarify thinking, enlighten public opinion, and ensure that the next President will have the tools he or she needs to defend the country and protect our interests.

I suggest 5 elements are key, not only to deal with the growing Russian threat, but also with the other challenges we face:

  1. Speak the truth. Historic changes after World War II came about because Kennan, Churchill, and others were willing to speak the truth. Domestic political calculations and spin are too often the enemy of the truth. Americans and others need to know the facts of Russian involvement in Ukraine. I think we Americans tend to undervalue the battle of ideas. We took it seriously during the Cold War. But whether it is the struggle against radical Islam or against European aggression, the fight for the truth to be heard and believed is especially important in a networked world. Among other benefits, it lets our allies know that they are not alone. We need the organizations, capability, and political will to fight on that battlefield.

 

  1. Strengthen our defense, which starts with how much we spend. Next year’s budget is subject of confusing political maneuvering right now between Capitol Hill and the White House. Both the House and Senate passed Budget Resolutions and now Defense Authorization Bills at the level of defense funding requested by the President. It is the level that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey called the “lower ragged edge” of what it takes to defend the country. Yet the President has threatened to veto either the authorization or appropriations bills or both at his requested level unless Congress agrees to spend more money on domestic agencies, such as the IRS and EPA. Just last Friday, the President repeated his warning to a group of mayors, saying “I will not sign bills that seek to increase defense spending before addressing any of our needs here at home.”

 
Some foreign pharmacies and regencygrandenursing.com levitra 60 mg some online pharmacies are delivering the medicine after getting the proper order from the patient party. Some people wait until they have used the last one in regencygrandenursing.com online cialis no prescription order to make the order. Therefore, they can reduce shedding, moisturize dry coat and heal levitra in india price flaking skin. It cannot be used by men who take nitrate drugs for chest pain, also referred to as angina, should not take any dose without consulting a healthcare professional. usa cheap viagra
I note that history has a way of turning irony into tragedy as today Secretary Carter is in Europe working to bolster our NATO allies’ commitment to the alliance, increase their defense budgets, and stiffen spines against Russia. He does that just as the President is holding the defense bills hostage here at home for his own political ends. Nothing would better underscore Secretary Carter’s message than the President’s prompt signature on a bill that funds our military, aids Ukraine, and adds resources to our posture in Eastern Europe. Increasing money to the Overseas Contingency Account is not the ideal way to fund defense, and I agree that we very much need higher, consistent, predictable funding. But holding defense hostage for higher EPA funding will not achieve that goal, and it certainly will not make our nation safer. The fact is that our defense spending has been cut 21% counting the effects of inflation over the last four years, and the world is not 21% safer. As Charles Krauthammer has famously noted, “Decline is a choice.”

 

We have a choice right now to meet the “lower ragged edge” of what is needed to defend the country or to play politics and end up with significantly less than is required. The choice we make may well prove to be a significant milestone on what the next 70 years will look like. As far as how we spend that money to strengthen our defenses, our nuclear deterrent requires special attention. This week our Committee will have several events on the topic. It is the foundation for all of our defense efforts, yet we have taken it for granted, neglecting the systems, the infrastructure, and the people involved in making sure those complex machines are safe, reliable and effective. The weapons and the delivery systems are all aging out about the same time, and maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent will have to be a major priority for the next administration and Congress. In tight budgets, it is tempting to shave off research and development funding. Tight budgets also cause institutional interests to be more protective of what they have. Neither of those temptations will help us meet the challenge posed by peer competitors. Deputy Secretary Work is leading a push known as the 3 rd Offset to  stop the further erosion of American technological advantage. It is a matter of considerable importance and urgency. Few defense systems add uncertainty and complications into an adversary’s planning process as much missile defense. And few defense systems help reassure worried allies as much. An expedited push on both technological development and fielding of existing systems is needed. The new domain of warfare — cyber – poses special challenges for those of us who value the rule of law. But the threat is growing faster than we are able to deal with it. It is not our technical expertise that I worry about; it is our laws and policies that are not keeping up.

 

  1. Improve our Agility – We need not only to allocate more resources to defense, we need to make sure these resources are spent more effectively. That is one of the reasons both the House and Senate have put a high priority on defense reform. But an even more important reason to reform the Pentagon is to improve the agility of our system.

 

To be blunt, if it continues to take us 20 years to field a new airplane, we can never maintain a technological edge over our adversaries. While there are certain trends we can see, such as the increasing importance of the cyber domain, we have to be as ready as we can be to deal with the unexpected in this complex, volatile world. Rigidity is our enemy – whether it is in our bureaucratic organizations, in our military strategy and tactics, in our procurement systems, or in our decision-making. This year, we are focusing on reform of acquisition, reform of our personnel system, and reduction of overhead. Improving efficiency is one objective of these reforms, but to me improved agility is the overriding one.

 

  1. Stand strong with allies While the United States must have the capability to defend ourselves and our interests on our own, it is preferable and more likely that we will do so with allies. Whether it is Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, allies must pull their share of the weight. The fact that only four NATO allies are meeting the 2% of GDP target is not only unfair, it is most likely seen by Moscow as further evidence of mush. The U.S. should lead by example, stop the decline in our defense budgets, and demand that others meet the targets. We have to give those willing to defend their country against aggression the means to do so. It is disturbing to me that some here and in Europe see themselves sitting on Mount Olympus, passing judgment on who is qualified to fight an invasion of their country and who is not. It may be that if we provide the Ukrainians with lethal assistance to defend themselves that Putin will up the ante. But they still have the right to defend themselves, and Putin will pay a price for increased causalities – one he is obviously very nervous about paying. We need a concentrated effort to look at what works and what doesn’t when it comes to train and equip efforts. We have had successful and unsuccessful examples over the years, and later this year our Committee will take a look at both.

 

  1. Use all instruments of national power In 2007 I served on the Commission on Smart Power, whose recommendations were largely a matter of common sense before they got caught up in politics. We need the full range of capabilities and the judgment to know which tool to use in which circumstance. Secretaries of Defense have become strong advocates for funding of other agencies, yet the day-to-day frustration of antiquated approaches, bureaucratic infighting, stove-piped bureaucracies have led to more and more tasks being assigned the U.S. military. They will do whatever they are asked, but sometimes I worry that we ask too much.

 

One clear example of a non-defense tool that would make a difference in national security is energy. We need to end the ban on oil exports. The result would be lower fuel prices for our consumers, higher prices for our producers, and a step towards weaning several nations off of Russian energy.

 

Today we live in an unstable new world with some important parallels to those faced after World War II. The past gives us some positive examples to follow and other examples which provide a warning. Before the war began, in mid-1930s, as Britain was losing its superiority in the air over Germany, Churchill lamented, “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.” “There is nothing new in the story. . . . Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – those are the features which constitute the needless repetition of history.” Needless indeed.

 

We must not allow ourselves to fall into that trap as too many others before us have. On the other hand, we have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and to benefit from the example of those who did meet their historical moment so that we may craft a security structure that rises to the challenge of our dangerous, volatile world. And so that 70 years from now, future generations will look back with gratitude at what we were able to put in place. We must not let them down.