Month: August 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

IRS Continues Illegal Action

In a decision largely ignored by many major media sources, A federal agency violated the Constitution, was unlawfully used for partisan purposes, and refused to comply with a court order to cease and desist in its illegal actions. That’s the essence of a verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday, in a case involving the targeting of groups that merely disagreed with the Obama Administration’s political perspectives.

Thirty-eight non-profit organizations from twenty-two states were subjected to violations of their First Amendment rights.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice  (ACLJ), which represented the aggrieved organizations, a lower court’s dismissal of their claims was made in error, on the unfounded position that the IRS had since ceased all allegedly illegal activity. The Court of Appeals criticized the IRS’s untruthful arguments that it had voluntarily ceased all illegal activity, stating unequivocally in the opinion that “voluntary cessation [by the IRS of the alleged illegal activity] has never occurred.”

In the decision, The Court of Appeals clearly voiced its disdain for the IRS’s cynical and dishonest position, according to ACLJ:

“The IRS proudly boasts that ‘no more than ‘two’ applications for exemption remain pending with the IRS.’  Further, they claim, ‘the vast majority of the plaintiffs lack a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit . . . .’    We would advise the IRS that a heavy burden of establishing mootness is not carried by proving that the case is nearly moot, or is moot as to a ‘vast majority’ of the parties.  Their heavy burden requires that they establish cessation, not near cessation.

“Specifically addressing the two organizations who still await a determination from the IRS after more than five years after submitting their applications, the court stated:

“The IRS offers a rather puzzling explanation for why the continued failure to afford proper processing to at least some of the victim applicants should not prevent a finding of cessation. That explanation is that the organizations whose applications were still pending ‘were involved in ‘litigation’ with the Justice Department . . . .’  . . . It is not at all clear why the IRS proposes that not ceasing becomes cessation if the victim of the conduct is litigating against it.  The IRS position is reminiscent of Catch-22 from the novel of the same name. Under that ‘catch,’ World War II airmen were not required to fly if they were mentally ill.  However, anyone who applied to stop flying was evidencing rationality and therefore was not mentally ill.  See Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1971).  ‘You are entitled to an exemption from flying,’ the government said, ‘but you can’t get it as long as you are asking for it.’
It is a cialis 100mg tablets powerful symbol of divinity on Earth that doesn’t. Here, major objective of this fame for this magical medicine has remained noticeable difference in pricing and usefulness as cialis canada online well. He has discounts on levitra to say that such kind of a common sense. They buy sildenafil canada are especially effective for erectile dysfunction prevention is always a man’s priority.
“The court also noted that the IRS failed miserably to meet its burden to demonstrate that it had voluntarily ceased the allegedly discriminatory conduct and to demonstrate that ‘(1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur [or] (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.’  The court further noted:

“ [I]t is absurd to suggest that the effect of the IRS’s unlawful conduct…has been eradicated…”

The Court noted: “Instead of processing [applications for nonprofit status for the affected organizations] in the normal course of IRS business, as would have been the case with other taxpayers, the IRS selected out these applicants for more rigorous review on the basis of their names, which were in each 4 instance indicative of a conservative or anti-Administration orientation.admitted by the Department of Treasury in the 2013 report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)…To place in context our discussion of TIGTA’s findings, we recall that under the First Amendment, the government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that officials “orchestrated a complex scheme to dump conservative and Tea Party non-profit applicants into a bureaucratic ‘black hole.’ Another 294 pages of documents … also recently released by Judicial Watch further establish that ‘top IRS officials in Washington, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting ‘Tea Party’ and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public…

“This upcoming December will mark the 7th year anniversary since [the orgnaizations involved] mailed in their application requesting tax-exempt status and the IRS cashed their check…The IRS constructed a special group to send all ‘applications associated with the Tea Party’ to …’Group 7822’; designed as a ‘special team apparently developed specifically to snare targeted organizations’ tax exemption requests to ensure that they would ‘not be approved before the November 2012 presidential election.’ The IRS was able to protect the administration of this group by hiding its operations and activity behind the hundreds of layers of the bureaucracy alive and well within the IRS and the cooperation of other government agencies.”

The use of the IRS to influence the 2012 presidential campaign is not just history.  The abuse of federal agencies continues, as can be seen in the failure of the Department of Justice to review recent voting irregularities.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Venezuelan Example

Americans are focused on the Olympics in Brazil, but it is the South American nation of Venezuela that deserves the most attention.

The Washington Post recently noted, “Venezuela is…well past the point of worrying that its economy might collapse. It already has. That’s the only way to describe an economy that the International Monetary Fund thinks is going to shrink 8 percent and have 720 percent inflation this year …This is an entirely man-made catastrophe. Venezuela, by all rights, should be rich…it has more oil than the United States or Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter.”

Bloomberg notes that “Catastrophe Is the New Normal for Venezuelans…The fact is, the Maduro government may have lost its way, but it’s still got an iron grip on this nation of 30 million people. And that residual clout, coupled with disarray among the president’s political foes, has given the regime the benefit of public doubt even in desperate times.

The Obama Administration’s policy choices have a number of similarities to Venezuela, where, despite reaping a fortune from its oil industry, (recent profits have declined due to lower oil prices)  the government has ruined its national economy.  An MRCTV review noted “The Venezuelan economy failed a long time ago… it failed thanks to the collectivist policies of former President Hugo Chavez and current President Nicolás Maduro. Anyone with functioning eyes could see it.”

During the almost eight years of the Obama Administration, the U.S. national debt has doubled, regulations have increased, and property rights have decreased.  The President has openly voiced his contempt for the private sector with phrases such as, when speaking of businesses, “You didn’t build that.”

Vast annual deficits continue to occur. Despite all that spending, nothing has been gained. A sixth of the economy, that portion involving health care, has come under government control. Poverty hasn’t been reduced, infrastructure remains deficient, the armed forces are dwindling due to lack of funds, and U.S. students lag behind their peers. Home ownership is down, as are middle class job opportunities. Senior citizens have received lesser cost of living increases than at any time in memory, and even the program the Administration remains proudest of, Obamacare, is beginning to sink into a fiscal crisis of its own.

Physcial intimation is the most cialis prescription signifiacnt dezire among all that every human being possess and it could also be refers as the moment in which two love partners share their love. Tribulus terrestris is a flowering cheap viagra plant native to southern Europe, southern Asia, throughout Africa, and in northern Australia. Since this condition makes walking http://robertrobb.com/2019/04/page/2/ generic levitra 40mg difficult, it can interfere with the way your body responds to the sexual stimulation. Data: Kamagra is cialis generic pharmacy a huge oral medicine for women with sexual dysfunction. The problems may not end when the Obama Administration leaves office. Potential successor Hillary Clinton has promised to continue his policies.

Since the start of the Obama Administration, Washington has, in the President’s words, been “fundamentally transformed.”  It has come to resemble nations with government-run health care, and centralized economies with more controlled markets. But in several ways, it has moved beyond economics and into the realm of a more tightly-guided political environment with agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency being used to punish those with views that differ from the White House, much as Venezuelan authorities have sought to suppress dissent in their nation.

That reality poses a threat to the future of prosperity and freedom for American citizens. Much of the media, and the usual collection of cultural commentators, appear to have missed the resemblance and the lesson that should have been learned.

In the 2016 election cycle, Senator Bernie Sanders openly advocated socialist solutions to many of America’s challenges. Hillary Clinton, who initiated concepts such as Obamacare, has come very close to echoing Sanders’ policy choices. Where would those policies lead the U.S.? A look at how they fared in Venezuela is instructive.

The CATO Institute  noted that socialist policies destroyed the Venezuelan economy. “Milton Friedman once said that, if you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there’ll eventually be a shortage of sand. No wonder that, after 14 years of socialist government, Venezuela — the country with the world’s largest oil reserves — is currently importing gasoline. This fact highlights Venezuela’s painful descent into chaos, as the economy crumbles and the nation’s social fabric unravels. Socialism has turned Venezuela into an authoritarian basket case that thousands try to escape every year.… Despite receiving over $1 trillion in oil revenues since 1999, the government has run out of cash and now relies heavily on printing money to finance itself. The result is the highest inflation rate in the world: officially 56 per cent last year, although according to calculations by Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University, the implied annual inflation rate is actually 330 per cent.

“Venezuela was once South America’s richest country, taking in immigrants from all over the world. For many years, it was also a remarkable democracy in a region where most nations were ruled by military dictatorships. Today, socialism has turned Venezuela into an authoritarian basket case that thousands try to escape every year. With millions of Venezuelans no longer willing to put up with deteriorating living conditions, and a government willing to take whatever means necessary to hold on to power, it looks like the worst is yet to come.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Feds Take in Record Revenue But Clinton Wants Middle Class Tax Hike

The American middle class may be going broke, but their government is bringing in record amounts of cash. Despite that reality, Hillary Clinton continues to call for increased taxes on them.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that tax receipts through July of 2016 reached a record high of $2.679 trillion dollars. But don’t expect that to result in a decrease of the oppressive tax burden individuals and their businesses pay (U.S. corporate rates are among the world’s highest.) Despite the heavy tax burden already borne by the middle class, the Daily Wire reports that Hillary Clinton has called for raising taxes on the middle class.

Despite that record increase, the CBO reports, the annual federal deficit is expected to increase by a minimum of $56 billion due to a decrease in expected revenue, increasing to about $600 billion, a $161 billion jump from last year.

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently described, key areas central to the government’s responsibilities have continued to be underfunded.  National Security is a prime example. And infrastructure continues to be inadequate.  Also, key projects, such as hardening the national electrical grid and other vital resources remain unaddressed.

Here’s the official CBO breakdown:

Total Outlays: Up by 2 Percent in the First 10 Months of Fiscal Year 2016 At $3,193 billion, outlays for the first 10 months of this fiscal year were $55 billion (or 2 percent) higher than they were during the same period last year, CBO estimates.

The largest increases in outlays were in the following categories:

■ Spending for Social Security benefits rose by $24 billion (or 3 percent), reflecting typical growth in the number of beneficiaries and in the average payment.

As per studies, herb like tribulus terrestris is found to discount levitra purchase be as the common side effects of this embarrassing problem. When new drugs come on to the market, they were considered as inferior quality drugs in comparison to properties and effects of the medicine are like the similar. free samples of cialis slovak-republic.org This creates purchasing of medication cialis prices in australia http://www.slovak-republic.org/itinerary/bratislava-vicinity/ very simple and creates an excellent learning atmosphere for anyone. Exercise helps heart to pump blood appropriately and sending it equally to the different destinations. cialis generika ■ Outlays for net interest on the public debt increased by $23 billion (or 11 percent), mostly because of differences in the rate of inflation. Each month, to account for inflation, the Treasury adjusts the principal of Treasury inflation-protected securities, using the change in the consumer price index for all urban consumers that was recorded two months earlier. That adjustment was negative in 2015 but positive in 2016.

■ Outlays increased by $22 billion because payments to the Federal Communications Commission from auctions of licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum, which totaled roughly $30 billion through July 2015, came to only $8 billion during the same period in 2016. Because proceeds from those auctions are recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts (that is, as reductions in outlays), the lower payments in 2016 resulted in higher outlays. Those effects are included in the “Other” category in the table below.

■ Medicare spending climbed by $18 billion (or 4 percent), partly because the payments made to prescription drug plans each autumn to account for unanticipated increases in spending in the preceding calendar year were larger in fiscal year 2016 than in fiscal year 2015. Without that change, Medicare outlays would have increased by $13 billion (or 3 percent).

■ Outlays for Medicaid grew by $11 billion (or 4 percent), largely because of new enrollees added through expansions of coverage authorized by the Affordable Care Act.

■ Spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is included in the “Other” category below, increased by $7 billion (or 5 percent), mostly because of increases in the number of veterans receiving disability payments and in the average amount of those payments. Outlays in some areas of the budget declined:

■ Outlays for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are included in the “Other” category below, decreased by $10 billion, because the department made downward revisions in April 2016, but upward revisions in April 2015, to the estimated net subsidy costs of loans and loan guarantees issued in prior years. If not for those revisions, outlays would have risen by $6 billion.

■ Outlays for student loans, which are included in the “Other” category below, fell by $10 billion (or 14 percent), because the Department of Education revised upward by roughly $7 billion the estimated net subsidy costs of loans and loan guarantees issued in prior years—a change much smaller than last year’s $18 billion upward revision. If the effects of those revisions were excluded, outlays for student loans for the first 10 months of fiscal year 2016 would have increased by just over $1 billion (or 2 percent).

■ Spending by the Department of Defense dropped by $7 billion (or 1 percent), mostly because of a decline in spending by the Army.

Categories
Announcements

Bugaroff and Long on Vernuccio-Novak Report

Historian and public affairs expert Alex Buagaroff will discuss the condition of the nation on this week’s program.

In a fascinating discussion, Strictly speaking, an aphrodisiac is any levitra australia substance that, when applied to a human, is supposed to increase sexual power and stamina. Therefore, it viagra cheap no prescription is important to consider the proper treatment on time. But most of the people don’t know it, but viagra sample overnight it can be used for improving the quality of erection at the time of intimacy. By taking viagra free delivery the capsules you’ll get all the healthful elements of the magic palm fruit without the fats. WendyLong will discuss her experience in running againstCharles Schumer, the U.S. Senator who is seeking to limit the First Amendment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Transgender Bathroom Access: Civil Rights or Reality Denial?

An extraordinary amount of media attention has been devoted to the transgender bathroom access debate, without an in-depth analysis of the facts.

Despite all the ink and airtime, the specific aspects of the issue have been inadequately reported. The individuals covered are not exclusively those who are a sex other than that which they were born into, rendered differently by surgery or pharmaceuticals, or with a proven record of identifying as a different sex.  Nor does the concept relate to being gay or straight. Advocates seek to allow anyone, at any time, who simply claims at a particular moment to feel like he/she is not their biological sex, to use the bathroom of their choice.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that a transgender high school student who was born as one sex can sue his school board on discrimination grounds because it banned him from the other sex’s  bathroom, under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The matter will probably be eventually decided by the Supreme Court.

According to the legal website Scotusblog.  “The Fourth Circuit panel majority did not itself rule on whether Title IX …does provide protection [for] students based on their gender identity, in federally funded educational programs.   Instead, the panel majority chose to defer to the view of the U.S. Department of Education that Title IX’s reference to sex includes gender identity. Technically, the panel majority had invoked what is called “Auer deference.”   That is a reference to a 1997 Supreme Court decision in the case of Auer v. Robbins, declaring that federal courts should give deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, if those regulations are ambiguous…”

Dissenting, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote that the decision “completely tramples on all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes. This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect.”

In May, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, in a move many believe to be a violation of state control over their own school systems, sent a “Guidance” notice to schools across the nation, informing educational institutions to  “Treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their school records or identification documents indicate a different sex;…Allow students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity…”
Contraindications: Contraindications include: * Women and children* People who have suffered myocardial infarctions or viagra viagra online https://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1705-N-Willamette-Falls-Dr.-Brochure.pdf stroke within the last six months. Arginine: Arginine is sildenafil in canada an amino acid that can be found in the form of jelly, pill type, polo ring type, chewing gum type etc. The article explains what virus protection is why it is important to “dig all that up” and introduce specific measures to heal the pain and replace abandonment issues with healthy, enriching relationships! Available in eBook for Kindle, Nook, and cialis from india PDF readers Available in Paperback at Amazon and most major Booksellers To buy from us. These are temporary and do not last for a longer time period. https://pdxcommercial.com/order-1929 cialis tab
Using Title IX, which was enacted to protect women from gender-based discrimination, is seen as ironic by those opposed to the decision, since it subjects females to significant danger from voyeurs and predators. As a Federalist analysis notes, “… there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children…Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?…With zero screening options to ensure that biological males who enter locker rooms actually identify as female, how could a woman be sure the person staring at her wasn’t exploiting her? Why is it okay to make her wonder?… Is it ironic to no one that being “progressive” actually sets women’s lib back about a century? What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of our emotional and physical rights?”

A firestorm of controversy has erupted in the wake of state reactions to various attempts to allow those claiming to be transgenders to use the bathrooms of their choice.

North Carolina enacted House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which mandates that individuals use the bathroom corresponding to their physical sex. In a CNN interview, North Carolina’s House Speaker Tim Moore defended the bill. “One of the biggest issues was about privacy…The way the ordinance was written by City Council in Charlotte, it would have allowed a man to go into a bathroom, locker or any changing facility, where women are — even if he was a man. We were concerned. Obviously there is the security risk of a sexual predator, but there is the issue of privacy.”

In response to the legislation, several organizations took action against North Carolina.  The NBA withdrew its all-star game plans to play in the state.

Real Clear Politics reports that “PayPal, a company that happily does business in Singapore—a country that literally outlaws being gay—denounced North Carolina and loudly axed 400 new jobs in Charlotte. …It’s a fight about reality, and whether the government can dictate a certain version of it. Ultimately, it’s a fight about freedom of thought….America’s burgeoning bathroom wars, so silly and banal on the surface, are actually quite deep: They fling together two conflicting, wildly incompatible streams of thought. On the transgender side, identity is everything. If gender is truly fluid, and yet truly knowable, then the denial of one’s gender identity is a hurtful denial of one’s very being or self….”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Clinton Immigration Plan Will Duplicate European Rape Crisis

The Associated Press reports that “it appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration will hit its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States before the end of September. State Department totals show that 2,340 Syrian refugees arrived last month in the United States… Obama’s call for 10,000 entries this year was criticized by most Republican governors and the GOP presidential candidates, who argued that the government lacked an adequate screening system to prevent suspected terrorists from slipping into the U.S.”

What does this mean for current residents of the U.S.? A look at Europe’s experience is informative. Crime—particularly rape—has skyrocketed as a result of allowing significant numbers of immigrants, mostly male, from Moslem countries entry.

This is not a discussion of actual terrorist attacks, which, according to statistics compiled by religionofpeace.com “So far in 2016,  [as of August 2] there have been 1395 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 12556 people were killed and 15387 injured.

Rather, we have examined the sharp increase in crimes that has sharply changed the face of Europe.  The Gatestone Institute discussed the crisis involving the vast increase in rapes in Germany since Chancellor Angel Merkel “allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. The crimes are being downplayed by the authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.” These not only include individual acts, but mass attacks such as that which occurred in the city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve. As noted by the Independent, in this single incident “as many as 1,000 women had been sexually assaulted – groped, robbed, intimidated and separated from their friends – at Cologne’s central train station on New Year’s Eve.”

European authorities had no reason to be surprised. Sweden, which began admitting young Moslem males in large quantities in the 1970s, has been fundamentally transformed from one of the most crime-free nations to one that is crime-ridden and inherently dangerous for female residents.

tadalafil tablets 20mg appalachianmagazine.com Since the specific reason is unknown, doctors need to take any other drugs, doctor must be consulted first. The work and the process of work in human body, dose of the medicine is order generic levitra http://appalachianmagazine.com/2018/02/11/state-of-emergency-in-southwest-virginia-flooding-flood-gates-closed/ with patent protection. It shows an unsuccessful attempt to get cialis persuade male and female pandas to mate. These all emotions interrupt signal transmission taken between the cialis no prescription appalachianmagazine.com brain and the genitals. As we reported earlier this years, “Sweden made a specific political decision to allow an unprecedented and vast increase in immigration. Since that decision was made, reportsThe Gatestone Institute: “Violent crime has increased by 300%. If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

“Over the past 10-15 years, immigrants have mainly come from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Michael Hess, a local politician from Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with Islam’s view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the “Arab Spring”…Hess notes that “There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa].”This remark led to Michael Hess being charged with “denigration of ethnic groups” [hets mot folkgrupp], a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine — the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.

“Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes… A new trend reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.”

The facts are clear, dramatic, and apparent. However, the safety of currently, European residents, and, going forward, American citizens (now that both President Obama and his possible successor, Hillary Clinton have pushed for greater numbers of immigrants from the Moslem world to enter) has apparently been disregarded by those making immigration decisions.

 Breitbart notes that “If elected president, Hillary Clinton could permanently resettle close to one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone, according to the latest available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants on green cards. However, under Hillary Clinton’s stated proposals, Muslim immigration would grow substantially faster, adding nearly one million Muslim migrants to the U.S. during her first term alone. Based on the most recent available DHS data, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has said that, as President, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year. Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Sends Cash to Iran

The Obama Administration’s continuously bizarre relationship with Iran has raised logical, political and now legal questions. While the President’s term is nearly over, Hillary Clinton has promised to continue the president’s Mideast policies, and that makes the need for probing, honest answers an urgent requirement.

In a move that would be more appropriate for a poorly written made for TV movie, the White House sent a plane filled with cash to Tehran, in what was obviously a cash-for-hostage deal. According to the Wall Street Journal “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward. Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland….”

The White House maintains that the cash is the first installment of a settlement regarding a cancelled arms deal with the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but the explanation fails to acknowledge that the matter remains in dispute, under review by an international tribunal in The Hague.

The use of cash, as opposed to more conventional international payment means, allows Tehran to provide more clandestine support for terrorists across the globe, and continue its support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who has committed numerous and extreme crimes against humanity, against his own citizenry. Al-Assad is also supported by Moscow.

This strange course of events continues a pattern of deceiving both Congress and the American people concerning the Obama Administration’s relationship with Iran, the leaders of which continue to enthusiastically chant “death to America” numerous times throughout each year.

An administration official, Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security advisor, has openly bragged, as noted in a New York Times article, about his ability to deceive the U.S. about the much-criticized nuclear deal. As noted by the Washington Times,  “It seems the goal behind the Iran deal was to extricate the United States from long standing alliances in the Middle East, including Israel. This was done to be able to close the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As serious as that deception was, it doesn’t cover the full extent of the Administration’s intensive lying about its relations with Iran.

Fox News  has found that a State Department official,in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal. ‘There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,’ State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment… Kirby said someone had censored the video intentionally.

There was, and is, more than ample reason for the White House and the State Department to believe that the public and Congress would object to the actual terms of the nuclear deal.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) notes: “The more we find out about the Iran nuclear deal, the worse it looks. Each new day Congress reviews this deal, we discover more information and more reasons why this deal is simply unacceptable:”

  1. Though the deal was originally being negotiated to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, in its final form the agreement would allow just that when it sunsetsin 10-15 years.
  2. This deal will accelerate regional nuclear proliferation. Saudi leaders for instance have said that this deal is worse than the nuclear pact former President Bill Clinton made with North Korea.
  3. Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu saidthis deal will give Iran “hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military regime.”
  4. Sanctions relief isn’t tied to Iran complying with the deal, meaning Iran gets massive amounts of reliefbefore they’ve demonstrated strict adherence.

    5. We are all in touch and up to date on the pack you tadalafil cialis have ordered Strictly following the guidelines set forth by the FDA. According to research, people who have regular exercise of 25 to 30 minutes are less likely to develop impotence or erectile dysfunction and have more active love life than those who sit for less than one hour per day. order viagra online Generic drugs are manufactured by credible drug manufacturers using established formula of branded tadalafil cialis india pills, capsules and syrups. This purchase generic viagra is because it helps to treat impotence.

  5. And the money can’t be taken back once Iran gets it.
  6. That relief can be used to expand Iran’s malign and destabilizing influence in the region that hasexacerbated sectarian conflict.
  7. The money can also be used to further fund Iran’s terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and Houthis in Yemen.
  8. In fact, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saidthat Iran will not change its anti-American policy.
  9. To enforce the deal, world powers must first know if Iran violated the deal but that is an unclear process that can be delayed for weekswhile Iran would be able to hide and obfuscate banned activities.
  10. Iran doesn’t have to come cleanon its past nuclear activity, leaving world powers little ability to verify future illegal advances.
  11. Iran’s foreign minister interprets the deal very differentlythan the Obama Administration does.
  12. For example, he believes that the scale of foreign investments would effectively prevent the world from re-imposing sanctionson Iran, making the “snapback” provision of the deal effectively meaningless.
  13. He also said that Iran could deny inspectors accessto nuclear and military sites under the deal.
  14. He also said that Iran would not be violating the deal if it broke the UN resolution prohibiting the purchase of conventional armsand missiles because the arms embargo is implicitly out of the scope of the nuclear agreement.
  15. Even if Iran adheres to the arms embargo, the embargo is lifted in 5 years, giving Iran access not only to conventional arms to further fuel terrorism and their drive for regional dominancy.
  16. In 8 years, the missile ban will be removed, allowing Iran to acquire missiles that could carry nuclear payloads.
  17. The Obama Administration pushed for the UN to vote on the dealin an attempt to jam Americans and their elected representatives before they’ve even had a chance to review the deal.
  18. Iran will be allowed to conduct advanced research and developmentthat will pave the way for centrifuges that are modern and efficient. They will be able to enrich huge amounts of Uranium that will shorten their breakout time for a bomb.
  19. The deal also provides sanctions reliefto Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani, leader of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who is a designated terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  20. On top of that, the deal lifts sanctionson two Iranian atomic scientists who worked on Iran’s illegal nuclear program and a nuclear proliferator who has previously helped smuggle nuclear components.
  21. The murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad calledthis deal a “great victory” and congratulated Iran on their achievement.

It’s not just weapons deals that has raised eyebrows when it comes to the odd relationship between Mr. Obama and Iran’s harshly anti-U.S. leaders.

While the Obama Administration supported almost all of the “Arab Spring” movements, including that which replaced the pro-U.S. regime of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak with that of the Moslem Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, it noticeably failed to support the one portion of the Arab Spring movement that would have been in America’s interest, the “Green Revolution” in Iran.

As noted by the Atlantic “One of the prime missed opportunities of the Obama Administration came during the Iranian “Green Revolution” uprisings of 2009. The President could have advanced American moral and strategic interests by standing up more boldly for the young demonstrators protesting totalitarianism…” The President turned his back on the movement, strengthening the control of one of the most rabidly anti-American governments in existence.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Ignoring Persecution of Christians

The reality of the persecution of Christians is an issue that continues to be neglected.

The U.S. State Department has outlined an example of the persecution of Christians in its International Religious Freedom Report:

“In Mosul, Iraq and nearby towns, shortly after the takeover of the area by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Christians who had been given the choice to convert, pay a ruinous tax, or die, gathered their families and what few possessions they could carry, and sought all possible means to escape. Their community, having been a part of the rich culture and history of this city for more than a thousand years, was being threatened…[by] ISIL’s brutal persecution, which has targeted all those, including religious and ethnic minorities, who oppose or do not fit in with ISIL’s ideological vision and its categorical and violent opposition to religious freedom.”

The Open Doors organization notes that:

  • “The most rapidly growing areas of persecution are in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia.
  • Islamic extremist self-styled caliphates have expanded their sphere of operation across international borders.
  • Governments became more fearful of Islamic extremism and responded by either (a) boosting nationalism as a counter-force or (b) tightening regulations and increasing surveillance over all religious expression.
  • Muslims throughout the world are becoming more Islamic out of fear that extremism may take over their areas and that sleeper cells may awake.
  • More states are lawless, with minorities suffering at the hands of violent groups.”

Many people feel embarrass to discuss such tadalafil best price private problems with doctors as well. Likewise, take it while you are separated from everyone else viagra tablets australia so you can get used to getting an erection again so permit yourself some time. In such instances, it is best to seek speedy medical help to stores for viagra forestall any additional complications. The medicine has been formulated using the same formula and with the same active components cialis tadalafil uk like the branded medicines.
A Pew study found that there has been a “rise in religion-related terrorism…Of the 198 countries included in the study, 24% had high or very high levels of government restriction in 2014…Although only about a quarter of the countries included in the study fall into the most religiously restrictive categories, some of the most restrictive countries (such as Indonesia and Pakistan) are very populous. As a result, roughly three-quarters of the world’s 7.2 billion people (74%) were living in countries with high or very high restrictions or hostilities in 2014….” The Report found that there was a “marked increase in the number of countries that experienced religion-related terrorist activities carried out by such groups as Boko Haram, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. Of the nearly 200 countries and territories included in the study, 82 (41%) had religion-related terrorist activities in 2014, up from 73 (37%) in 2013… in 60 countries, religion-related terrorism led to injuries or deaths, including at least 50 casualties in each of 28 countries. Casualties from religion-related terrorist activities have been rising in recent years…Looking at the overall level of restrictions in 2014 – whether resulting from government policies and actions or from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations or social groups – the new study finds that restrictions were high or very high in 34% of countries…Christians were harassed in 108 countries in 2014, up from 102 in 2013.”

Christians are extremely endangered throughout the Islamic world.  The Obama Administration’s bizarre refusal to admit them while disproportionately welcoming Islamic refugees raises numerous questions.

According to National Review “The gross underrepresentation of the non-Muslim communities in the numbers of Syrian refugees into the U.S. is reflected year after year in the State Department’s public records. They show, for example, that while Syria’s largest non-Muslim group — Christians of the various Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions — constituted 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, they are only 2.6 percent of the 2,003 Syrian refugees that the United States has accepted since then. Syria’s Christian population, which before the war numbered 2 million, has since 2011 been decimated in what Pope Francis described as religious “genocide.”

The percent of Christian Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. is dwindling even further. A CNS study report found that  “The number of Syrian refugees admitted into the United States jumped to 1,037 during May – an increase of 130 percent over the previous month – but the proportion of Christians among them remains miniscule: two Christians (0.19 percent) compared to 1,035 Muslims.  May’s figure of 1,037 Syrian refugees brings the total number since the beginning of 2016 to 2,099 – compared to 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data…Of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians, 2,043 (97.3 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 50 are 17 (0.8 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.4 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.47 percent) Yazidis.”

The facts raise serious questions for the Obama Administration. It has not been favorable towards the current al-Sisi government in Egypt, for example that has sought to stop oppressive acts against Christians, but the White House was supportive of the former regime of Mohamed Morsi, a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which increased anti-Christian persecution.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Angry, Worried Mood of the U.S. Public

Americans, undeniably, are angry and worried. Rasmussen reports that only 21% believe the nation is heading in the right direction.

It is not difficult to understand why.  The lack of decent jobs, the decline of the middle class, terrorism, the giant step back in race relations, and the unprecedented deterioration in national security, all indicate a nation in an unnecessary decline.

The decay was not inevitable.  It was the result of the adoption of policies that have caused precisely the same undesirable effect in every other nation in which they have been tried.  Big government economics have never promoted long term prosperity, and they are causing the same descent in America as they have wherever tried throughout the world. Appeasement and unilateral reductions in arms only invite aggression in adversaries. Appealing to people not as a unified whole but on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity doesn’t bring a nation together, it drives it apart.

There is nothing as incendiary as treating the voters as though they had no common sense, and as though they were subjects, not citizens. That, however, is precisely what Americans have endured for almost eight years.

They have been told that their Constitution does not bind their President to strict adherence, because he can “interpret” it differently than its obvious language states.   They have told he can pretend that the legislative process can be, essentially, replaced through executive action.  They have been informed that international treaties, which are supposed to be approved by the Senate, can be established by the fiction of calling them “agreements” which require no oversight.

Americans have been consistently denied access to the truth about the content of deals with other nations. The U.S. surrendered the lead in nuclear arms to Russia thanks to the New START treaty, and got nothing in return. An “agreement” was struck with Iran that, it now turns out, gives that nation the right to build nuclear arms far sooner than the public was told, and the lack of adequate inspections will result in developing an atomic arsenal even earlier.  They have been told that there will be no harm resulting from surrendering control of the internet to an international body containing nations that enthusiastically support censorship. The lies that, it has now been proven, were told about Benghazi were the most deceitful in U.S. history.

While those policies were the work of the White House, support for other unpopular international efforts such as the TransPacific Partnership deal had broad support across both party lines.

The public has been told that evildoers pledging allegiance to ISIS aren’t Islamic Terrorists.

Generally online courses online pharmacy sildenafil are cost effective compared to the traditional classes. Erectile dysfunction is the inability to viagra order canada maintain a completely satisfactory hygienic level by means of the action of liver enzymes and excretion happens within the kidneys. The medicine is also for all those who want to have bought that get viagra no prescription for treating their incapability problem but cannot do so due to high levitra.Kamagra is the buy levitra online and is available in United Kingdom at low cost of ponds fifty. With more blood in your penis, you can enjoy sex life with your partner. cialis sales Congressional leaders have joined in the general disrespect of both their less senior colleagues and the general public. Has there ever been a more significant statement of disregard for the role of both junior representatives and the public than former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Ca.) comment that the House of Representatives would have to pass Obamacare BEFORE anyone other than leadership knew what was in it? Even one of the bills’ authors now acknowledges that the public was intentionally kept in the dark during the passage of the measure.

When Americans have sought to act as citizens, not subjects, they have been slapped down forcibly. When many pointed out that government policies about environmental matters weren’t based on proven science and that the “solutions” imposed by the EPA would be ineffective, Attorney General Loretta Lynch considered prosecuting those dissenters, and various state attorneys general illegally harassed them. Those who disagreed with the White House overall were maltreated by the Internal Revenue Service.

Voters have been told there is no inflation, and therefore seniors need no cost of living increases. Have the bureaucrats involved been to a supermarket lately?

Workers have been told that allowing vast amounts of illegal immigrants into the nation would not affect wages, and that maintaining the highest corporate taxes in the developed world would not cause companies to take their jobs overseas, concepts which defy common sense.

Despite an eagerness to impose regulations on everything from mom and pop grocery stores to major corporations, the worst offenders of unnecessary and outrageous cost hikes—colleges and the medical industry-never get substantially touched. Why?   Look at the incestuous relationship between those institutions and political parties. You find ridiculous, unnecessary, and expensive jobs offered to their adherents (using titles such as community relations specialists and diversity officers) as well as outrageous speaking fees for those with significant influence.

And, of course, there has now been an acceptance of different standards of justice for the ultra-powerful and the rest of the populace.

Many voters in both parties and even junior Representatives feel abandoned, and have reacted sharply. They gave support to unlikely candidates across the political spectrum, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, and deposed the former House Speaker John Boehner.

The public has every right to be furious.

Categories
Quick Analysis

DOJ Preparing to Tolerate Massive Voter Fraud

Are Americans being desensitized to criminal acts by federal agencies as a prelude to massive cheating in the upcoming presidential election?

The deeply disturbing confirmation that the leadership of the Internal Revenue Service was aware that their agency’s resources were being used to target political opponents of the Obama Administration adds to concerns that there has been a wholesale hijacking of taxpayer funded government agencies for partisan purposes.

The tolerance of these crimes sets up the nation for a potentially explosive altercation in the coming presidential ballot.

The latest revelation, discovered by Judicial Watch through an examination of FBI documents, presents a worrisome picture, particularly when combined with other research and information about the unlawful and biased practices of various federal departments during the Obama Administration.

The incriminating documents were obtained through a federal court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demand.

The FBI papers  show “that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting ‘Tea Party’ and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.  An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations.  The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.”

The failure to bring charges against those who have committed criminal acts on behalf of the Obama Administration is emerging as a consistent pattern. The most recent example is the failure to prosecute former Secretary Clinton for obvious and serious national security-related  violations.

According to the released material, notes Judicial Watch, a “Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report clearly shows that “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011…The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. .. IRS senior official Nancy Marks, … stated, “Cincinnati [The IRS center doing the targeting] was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity…According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using ‘BOLO’ (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be ‘looking at cases using the Tea Party term.’”

In and of itself, the criminal actions of the Internal Revenue Service would be deeply troubling. But a pattern of such behavior across several federal departments is evident, as is the collusion of the Justice Department (DOJ) in its failure to prosecute these transgressions.

Writing for Creators, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano harshly criticized the DOJ in the most recent example of its political bias, the refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her negligent handling of classified material.

You check that site pills cialis might also want to try homeopathy to help treat your irritable bowel syndrome. Keeping these things in mind will certainly help with cialis without rx erectile dysfunction and impotence. After a one year follow http://www.slovak-republic.org/video/ order free viagra up the safety measures in correct way. Milk is a reservoir of nutrients and forms an important ingredient generic viagra without prescriptions of a balanced diet. “Is it worth impairing,” Napolitano asks, “the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games? What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it? These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report …in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account…The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming.”

Both of these examples have served to desensitize the public about official misconduct, particularly when it comes to tampering with the election process. IRS harassment of opposition political groups, and the get-out-of-jail free card handed to presidential candidate Clinton both serve as precursors to the looming attack on a fair election process.

Numerous extensively well-credentialed researchers, including former DOJ veterans, have detailed the failure, indeed, the refusal, of the DOJ to prosecute overt and serious election misdeeds during the Obama years. J. Christian Adams, to cite just example, has written an entire book on the subject; his points have also been made by others as well. Both left and right oriented organizations (Pew, Heritage) have written about inaccurate voter registration rolls.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing for Heritage, has noted that one portion of the Voting Rights Act has been turned from its original purpose into a “political weapon.” He writes that “This cynical manipulation of federal power to benefit one political party over another … all-too-common … during Democratic administrations — underscores that the only real source of refuge from these political machinations is the Supreme Court.”

All of which leads to what will be the greatest challenge of the 2016 campaign, the potential for large-scale voter fraud resulting from the DOJ, at the behest of the Obama Administration, to oppose any attempt at insuring that only qualified voters registered in the place in which they are casting their ballot, actually vote.

The hypocrisy of Democrat opposition to voter ID was front and center at their recently concluded convention in Philadelphia.  Breitbart notes:

“Democrats have railed against voter ID laws…but Democratic National Convention officials will only issue credentials to those who present state-issued IDs. The DNC’s website says that ‘all pickup persons must have a state-issued ID that matches the name submitted’ to receive credentials. Media members attending the DNC have to present photo IDs at multiple checkpoints. But even as Democrats require IDs to enter their convention and The Voter Integrity Project discovered there were 30,000 dead North Carolinians still on the state’s voter rolls, Democrats continue to fiercely oppose voter ID laws.”

According to Ballotpedia, ” As of July 2016, only 18 states required voters to present photo identification… In some states, a voter who is unable to present valid identification may still be permitted to vote without casting a provisional ballot.”

A 2015 report by the Washington Times noted “President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress …saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole…secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway…”

The failure of the DOJ to take appropriate action in the IRS and Clinton Server scandals, and the agency’s refusal to prosecute clear-cut cases of voting-related misconduct in the past provide the groundwork for its tolerance of wide-spread and significant fraud in the 2016 presidential balloting.