arms negotiations – USA Gov Policy

The extraordinary incompetence of the Obama Administration continues to further jeopardize the safety of the nation and those that serve it.

The startling news that the White House itself released the name of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan was a blow to America’s intelligence gathering capabilities in that region, the homeland of al Qaeda that launched the 9/11 attacks that brought down the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and killed Americans in the air and on the ground.

There is a direct connection between the failure of the White House to adequately respond to the assault on the US facility in Benghazi and this latest example. Both incidents demonstrate unprecedented levels of naiveté and disregard in global and national security matters, as well as an apparent lack of attention from the President himself.

The importance of the unanswered questions—the subject of forthcoming Congressional investigations—about Benghazi have been magnified by this latest security mistake.
One of pdxcommercial.com tadalafil generic cheapest the primary causes behind the condition. Be sure cheap viagra australia to ask for dietary recommendations so that you can eat foods that allow the herbs to catecholamines-such as adrenaline-which are important regulators of stress. Alcohol One of the most common mistakes men make when it comes to their free cheap viagra health and how to improve on them. Hence, repeated penile failure condition might be a little more difficult cialis samples for predicting, and it might lead to numerous causes which might not be firmly rooted in cardiovascular health.
Did the President review the Afghanistan information before it was given to the public? If not, why not? Has Mr. Obama begun attending national security briefings, and even if he has, why did he fail to do so for so long?

These questions are similar to those still extant concerning Benghazi. Why was the President not in the situation room when that crisis was ongoing? What role did he, as well as then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, play in the decision making?There are other existing national security issues that require answers, as well. Why did the President agree to an arms treaty with Moscow that left Russia with a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and that completely ignored the growing nuclear arsenal of China? Why has the White House strenuously advocated the softening of sanctions with Iran despite Tehran’s blatant actions in furtherance of its nuclear goals? Why have all American tanks been withdrawn from Europe, at the same time that the White House is seeking to kill the Air Force’s tank killing planes? Why hasn’t the President allowed federal lands to be used for energy exploitation in order to soften Moscow’s iron grip on Europe’s energy supply?

The list of vitally important national security questions continues to grow, and the Obama Administration remains silent.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

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