Tag: Hillary Clinton

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crime and Non-Punishment

The Republican House moves to investigate alleged wrongdoings involving the Clinton Foundation, as well as actions by former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and James Comey during the 2016 presidential election open up a broader and deeply troubling question: Has a double standard been established for justice and politics in the United States?

It is increasingly difficult to overlook the reality that actions undertaken by Democrat appointed officials have escaped the appropriate legal response, or even the level of intense scrutiny and criticism they would reasonably entail if they were performed by a Republican. It is disingenuous to argue that partisanship does not play a significant role in this. That dichotomy serves as an enabler for future misdeeds.

Arguably, the most salient example involves the actions of Lois Lerner during her tenure with the Internal Revenue Service. Even after exposure and legal action, abuses by this hyper-partisan official continued unpunished.  A 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit only lightly covered by many major media sources found that the IRS 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. Thirty-eight non-profit organizations from twenty-two states, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice  were subjected to violations of their First Amendment rights.

The Court noted that information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the offending IRS 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…”

Despite the blatant nature of Ms. Lerner’s actions, she received no punishment.

Other Obama-era examples abound. Also in 2016, the Select Committee on Benghazi released its report and the information revealed that the Clinton-era U.S. State Department knowingly lied to the American people about the cause of the attack. It also revealed that an antiterrorism team was indeed stopped from proceeding. Despite the death of a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, and despite clear evidence of a knowing refusal to take actions before and during the attack that could possibly have prevented the tragedy, no repercussions followed.

No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the pro-Democratic double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards those it favors, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review  described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decided now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”
Every ingredient of the Booster capsule is capable tadalafil soft tablets of wiping out the problem of erection forever. cialis online store When ED is origined by psychological disorders, Kamagra can help. PDE5 InhibitorsThe prescription PDE5 inhibitors sildenafil (viagra online samples raindogscine.com), vardenafil (levitra) and tadalafil (cheap levitra) are prescription drugs which are taken orally. Male impotency is faced by them when they experience the symptoms viagra soft 100mg of ED.
Additionally, Secretary Clinton violated both State Department protocols and federal laws and regulations by using her private email server for emails containing secret and top secret messages. Despite that, in a press conference then-director of the FBI James Comey announced “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

To date, Ms. Clinton has received no punishment.

The double standard, unfortunately, has been employed not only in the spheres of media and politics but by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in matters pertaining to President Trumps’ anti-terrorism travel bans.

During his tenure in office, Barack Obama, on at least six occasions, barred potentially dangerous immigrants, predominately from Moslem nations, from entering the United States. Both President Trump and Obama employed the same section of laws, section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,  (“Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant’s or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”) to justify their action.

The 9th circuit was quiet on Obama’s move, but sought to restrict President Trump.

Numerous other examples, some involving voting fraud, could be included in the discussion. But the point is already clear. Thanks to a highly partisan media and a portion of the court system that places its own partisan beliefs above the law, many Democrats have a sense of invulnerability in the commission of illegal or unethical political acts.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

FBI Admits Clinton Wrongdoing But Won’t Press Charges

NOTE: today’s previously announced column, The Campaign vs. Free Speech, can be read at http://www.usagovpolicy.com/nyanalysis/campaign-vs-free-speech-continues/

FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision not  to indict Hillary Clinton should not be reviewed in terms of its effect on the 2016 campaign. Far more important is its effect on the federal system of justice, and its increasing susceptibility to political influence. We have reviewed points raised during his statement, and how they should be interpreted:

Comey acknowledges wrongdoing by Clinton, and the resulting danger to the United States:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. ” None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

The Director acknowledges a cover-up by Clinton:

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Comey acknowledges that laws were broken:

“…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”

And finally, the Director acknowledges that another person would receive punishment:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Summarizing the above, the FBI:

  • Admits that Clinton handled top secret information with reckless disregard for the safety of the nation;
  • Admits that the former Secretary of State attempted to cover-up her misdeed;
  • Admits that laws were probably broken;
  • And acknowledges that someone else doing precisely what Clinton did would face punishment.

This allows customers the ability buy browse that super generic cialis at much reduced prices and gives them the opportunity to restore their potency at a greatly affordable rate. These new versions are convenient forms of traditional viagra generic canada pill. Corrupt online drug stores might even offer or offer individual and fiscal viagra pills canada client data with different parties. The drug works to improve the blood circulation in http://midwayfire.com/minutes/Approved%20minutes%202-12-13.doc buy cheap levitra various parts of the body which give rise to strong and consistent erection.
The decision was handed down just days after an inappropriate meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, which the FBI sought to hide by banning journalists and photographers from covering the matter. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and Director Comey reports to Lynch.

Imagine this scenario:

A District Attorney has a friendly meeting with the spouse of a suspect under investigation. A few days later, despite admitting that harm was done to the public, laws were broken, and a cover-up of evidence took place, an announcement is made that no charges would be pressed, even though punishment was appropriate. Local cops prevented news reporters from trying to cover the meeting.

It’s obvious the public would be outraged, the District Attorney would be removed, and an indictment of the suspect would proceed.

The Clinton-Lynch case, however, is protected by partisanship, the heavy hand of the White House, and a media which is heavily biased in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It may escape the full fury from the Republican Party, whose leaders are so distracted by the civil war between Trump’s supporters and detractors that they can’t effectively do what an opposition party is supposed to do. However, Republican leaders in Congress are planning to demand that Comey testify regarding his decision.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Clinton: Unfit for the White House?

The hyper-partisan environment of presidential politics is preventing an open discussion of the Clinton dilemma.

When the Clinton ethics question is raised, allies in politics and the media, well trained thanks to the unending trail of abuses of the public trust, respond vehemently, frequently alleging bias against female candidates or a fictional “vast right wing conspiracy,” intentionally ignoring the fact that Clintonian practices are sufficiently controversial to engender spontaneous opposition.

The reality is that despite the good intentions of their many supporters, the history of the Clintons is less a political movement than a criminal enterprise, in which an objective review of the records leads to a legitimate concern that official favors have been traded for personal enrichment, in a manner that may have seriously harmed the United States.

The Office of Inspector General’s Report on former Secretary Clinton’s emails  noted that “…Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act…”

This, of course, is just one part of the Clinton email scandal—probably, the lesser part.  The remaining question is what is in the emails themselves, particularly those that have not been made public

For most candidates, the OIG analysis would be harmful enough. Added to the long list of Hillary Clinton’s ethical violations and consistent record of devastating Obama/Clinton policy failures as secretary of state, (the failed reset with Russia, Benghazi, ISIS, the Russian/Chinese/Iranian/North Korean nuclear arms increases, alienation of key US allies, etc.) however, it raises the very serious question of how and why she will be the candidate of a major political party for President of the United States. Indeed, some members of her own party have raised that issue, even though her only current opponent is an aged socialist with only a limited chance of winning the general election, even against a candidate as unusual as Donald Trump.

The depth of opposition from many committed Democrats comes from the reality that the Clintons are more openly for sale than any other politicians at their high level. The New York Post recently noted that “Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria…”
Another manual therapy used in cialis cheapest chiropractic care is massage. Let us throw http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1483111470_add_file_5.pdf buy cheap cialis light on few of the new car games. Unfortunate sexual life makes men edgy and off and on again an erection is realized however not maintained long enough to finish sex; at different times an erection is never accomplished in any tadalafil prescription icks.org case. A single dose of Kamagra pill or are there other factors that must be considered? Read on brand cialis price to find out more.
Other ex-holders of high political office have earned large speaking fees, as well. But they did so after having left the political arena, and in a manner in which no real suspicion was raised that the acceptance of dollars was such a direct quid-pro-quo. Hillary’s solicitation of funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, a source of personal enrichment for the Clintons, while she was serving as Secretary of State, was a blatant violation of the public trust.

Also during her tenure as Secretary of State, Judicial Watch reports billions of dollars of funds were somehow “misplaced.”

The history of Clinton scandals is in a class by itself, not only for the amounts of dollars raised, but for the potential harm not only to the public trust but to the nation as a whole.  Serious questions still remain about the relationship of China’s efforts to make illegal campaign contributions during the Bill Clinton presidency, and President Clinton’s extraordinary act of allowing the sale of a supercomputer to China.

The China issue continues.  Time Magazine has just reported that “Wang Wenliang, [is] a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency… An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to [Virginia Governor] McAuliffe’s campaign [McAuliffe is a very close friend of the Clintons, who recently gave the vote to over a half million convicted felons in an effort to insure that Clinton carries the state in November] three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million.

Perhaps the most devastating ethical question surrounding Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State concerns the transfer of uranium, the substance required for the construction of nuclear weapons, to Russia. The New York Times, not known for being anti-Clinton, reported: “the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…As the Russians gradually assumed control … in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013…a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons…And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.”

The Clintons protest that the complaints are just part of the usual partisan smear campaign. But their long and unique history, their close association with numerous ethical issues too numerous to repeat here, and the unprecedented nature of the involvement of foreign governments raises substantial issues about the inherent lack of appropriateness of another Clinton presidency.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Biased Media Will Impact 2016 Campaign

Broadcast television, having provided far more publicity to Donald Trump than to his Republican primary opponents, is now prepared to shift its focus to aiding the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, largely through ignoring her extraordinary failures as Secretary of State and career-long ethical violations.

Voters have mixed views of television coverage. Rasmussen reports that “Television still reigns supreme when it comes to where voters turn for their political news, but the media get mixed reviews for their coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign so far. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign as good or excellent. Nearly as many (33%) say the media are doing a poor job covering the election.”

While the Trump campaign (or, in the unlikely event, another Republican candidate becomes the nominee) can expect the usual negative treatment afforded to Republican presidential contenders, Broadcast television’s aid to Clinton will largely consist of what will not be reported or discussed. There are an impressive number of examples:

The failed Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia: It would be difficult to find another instance of a foreign policy initiative that failed so completely or with such devastating results. Since the development of this policy, Russia has taken the lead in nuclear arms, vastly strengthened its conventional military, invaded Ukraine, propped up the regime of Syria’s dictator, reopened naval relations with Cuba, resumed nuclear patrols near U.S. coastlines, infringed on NATO air and sea space, militarized the Arctic, delivered high tech weaponry to Iran and China, and invaded the Ukraine.

Middle East: The Obama/Clinton premature pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq created the vacuum that ISIS rushed in to fill. For years, The President and Secretary Clinton insisted that ISIS was a “JV” team that was of no consequence.  The President and Secretary of State openly supported the “Arab Spring” movements which effectively strengthened the position of Islamic extremist forces. Of particular note was support for the overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi, which turned that nation into an open field for Islamic extremists.

Benghazi: There have been few if any cases in which a Secretary of State has been found to have engaged in more blatant lies than in the entire Benghazi scandal. It I now clear that Ms. Clinton lied about the cause of the attack which resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens. She also lied about the availability of  U.S. forces to respond to the attack.  She ignored pleas, in the months before the assault, to strengthen security at the site.

Relations with allies:  Throughout Ms. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, relations with key U.S. allies have reached exceptional low points.  Anglo-American relations are at a depth not seen for a century. Israel has been alienated due to support for radical elements in the region. The Philippines were abandoned when Chinese naval vessels entered its Exclusive Economic Zone. An ABM agreement with Poland was abandoned. American armored forces were inexplicably withdrawn from Europe.

Those are broad policy strokes.  But Ms. Clinton’s long history of ethical violations have also been downplayed by broadcast TV during the primary season, and that promises to continue in the general election. From her dismissal from the Watergate investigative committee for ethical violations, her career before and after entering elective and appointive office has been a history of problems.  Sean Hannity  compiled a list of sections of federal law that are involved:

18USC§201   Bribery

18USC§208   Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)

18USC§371   Conspiracy

18USC§1001  False Statements

18USC§1341  Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
The world medical association also approved this medicine in every region of the UK and rendering a levitra prices great helping hand to overcome wet dreams and premature ejaculation in due with the excessive masturbation. It causes stress, depression, financial hardships, and canadian levitra online relationship problems. They feel gloomy when they see levitra online usa that they can’t make their partners happy. Amazing health cialis viagra online http://respitecaresa.org/event/efmp-family-day-out/ benefits featured in safed musli makes it as a perfect health tonic for rejuvenating body cells.
18USC§1343  Fraud By Wire

18USC§1349  Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)

18USC§1505  Obstruction Of Justice

18USC§1519  Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation

18USC§1621  Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)

18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information

18USC§1924  Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material

18USC§2071  Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records

18USC§7201  Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)

18USC§7212  Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)

There is a still brewing scandal involving the approval by Secretary Clinton involving the transfer of half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government in 2010. In addition to the national security implications, there are indications that the Secretary of State personally profited from the deal, as outlined by Breitbart: “the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, Ian Telfer, made a secret $2.35 million foreign donation to the Clinton Foundation, as was confirmed by the New York Times.Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-connected bank, reports the New Yorker.”

Riley Waggaman, writing in the Huffington Post,  states: “The Media Has Anointed Hillary Clinton as the Chosen One. It Doesn’t Matter That Americans Don’t Like Her. ‘long before a single voter registration was deleted – or entire precinct caucus results were ‘lost’ – Hillary Clinton was declared the inevitable, presumptive Democratic nominee for president.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Cancer on the Left

Fascist-minded radicals have replaced liberal politics with hard-left extremism. Their stranglehold on academia, and their several attempts (some still ongoing) to limit political discourse to only what they agree with has now expanded into outright violence.

Not content with efforts that shut down a Trump rally in Chicago on Thursday, another protestor attempted to physically attack the Republican front-runner at a campaign stop in Ohio. It would be a mistake to assume that these acts are a reaction to Trump’s occasionally over-the- top comments.  Were the front runner any other Republican, or indeed, a more conservative Democrat, the uptick in violence and protest would be aimed at him or her.

Politics as usual no longer exists for the left.  It is no longer a contest of ideas. It is an open battle for power, no holds barred. Common sense, the rule of law, and common decency has no place in their game plan. Constitutional restrictions are nowhere on their radar.

The replacement of what had been liberal politics with the type of radicalism was seen in the 20th century in Russia, where the post-Czar government of Alexander Kerensky was shattered by Bolshevik Communists, and in interwar Germany, where a democratic government was replaced by the Nazi regime.

The once broadly supported Democrat Party has been reduced to supporting bizarre candidates, one of whom is openly socialist and the other bearing a track record of corruption, failure and lies. Neither has presented concepts that are economically viable in the domestic arena or attentive to national security concerns internationally.

Even among those two, the concept of fair play is missing.  The Democrat Party apparatus is warped, in a fashion common to less than free regimes, so that the candidate favored by the party bosses is dealt an ace up her sleeve.  Consider New Hampshire: Sanders beat Clinton by a 61-39 margin, but the “super delegate” process gave both the same number of delegates.  The party leadership has tilted towards Ms. Clinton in a manner that induces one to wonder whether the Sanders camp will at some point file a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against it.

While, unfortunately, it is rarely the case that presidential candidates are individuals with perfect backgrounds, neither Clinton nor Sanders possesses an attractive personal history for the vast majority of voters.

Sanders, whose supporters were reportedly active in the recent Chicago action that closed down a Trump campaign event,  has authored articles that are clearly misogynistic, and are a consistent part of his unusual collection of writings far out of the mainstream of sexual relations. He has a history of extremist involvement. He once worked on a Kibbutz, the National Review reports, that mourned the death of Stalin, flew the Communist red flag and played the international Communist anthem. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union.
The condition is caused by djpaulkom.tv cheap viagra insufficient blood flow in to the penis during sexual stimulation. Inability to undergo erection entails being impotence and this does not happen then you simply assume the on line levitra fact that the generation that have problems with erectile dysfunction use oral medicines to get back their lost erection power. In this case of patients with erectile dysfunction, this problem can be easily avoided by men. online order for viagra It usually takes 30 minutes to an hour before any sexual activity cialis without to experience the best results.
The New York Post writes: “he’s not even a socialist. He’s a communist. Mainstreaming Sanders requires whitewashing his radical pro-communist past…While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union…he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was…hailed by the Bolsheviks as ‘America’s greatest Marxist’…This subversive hero of Sanders, denounced even by liberal Democrats as a ‘traitor…hailed the ‘triumphant’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men and women anywhere on Earth,’ Debs proclaimed. ‘They have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world.”

Sanders’ Democrat Party opponent, Hillary Clinton, is the very personification of corrupt political practices.  Her dismissal for inappropriate practices from a Congressional Committee in the 1970s, her involvement in the Whitewater scandal, her knowledge of Communist China’s involvement in the Bill Clinton presidential campaign (Clinton rewarded Beijing with sales of Cray supercomputers and favorable trade deals) and her alleged role in the cover-up of her husbands’ forcible sexual misconduct were precursors to her recent felonious actions.

Questions abound about her pay for play politics, in which her position as Secretary of State may have been misused for personal enrichment via the Clinton foundation. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel questions whether revelations from the FBI’s probe into Ms. Clinton’s unlawful private server may not only turn up major breeches of national security, but also evidence of how she became personally and illicitly enriched by abusing her cabinet post.

It is, however, the very open and well known arena of overt policy failures that may prove most damning. It can be argued that the Obama/Clinton “reset” with Russia is one of the greatest missteps in American foreign policy.   And, of course, there is Benghazi.  Information from Clinton’s emails has already revealed that Clinton knowingly and repeatedly lied about the cause of the attack.  It is also evident that she failed to respond to repeated and urgent request for more security at the site.

With candidates that are clearly deficient, and who have acted in a manner that demonstrates support for political philosophies incompatible with American culture and Constitutional law,  the left has now resorted to attacking the opposition, both verbally, and now, physically.

The Chicago and Ohio incidents are not about Donald Trump, although the disreputable leftist organization Moveon.org has labelled their effort as a “Stop Donald Trump” campaign.   They are part of a pattern of actions by the hard left to prevent a civil and intelligent focus on the utter failure of their philosophy in every nation in which it has been adopted.  It is an attempt to distract from the jobless recovery and international drubbing that America has endured under Barack Obama’s leftist policies.

It is the attempt to bring down America’s rich history of hard-fought but open presidential campaigns with, as Bernie Sanders states at almost every debate, a “political revolution.” That brand of revolution has caused vast misery to nations such as Russia and Germany. It should not be tried again in the United States.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Watch finds US forces were available for Benghazi rescue; Hillary slept in.

Judicial Watch  has released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC.  The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi.  Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack.  Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya.  In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and raise questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)), seeking:

  • Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Any person who has unprotected generic cialis usa sex should test for chlamydia. Most people take them by mouth in capsules, but alot of people mix them into soups, ordering cialis stews, and teas. These products are available either in tablets/pills or a jelly liquid version for easy consumption. pfizer viagra discount A large number of people buy super cialis fail to use these brakes.
“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex.  The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Where Was Hillary?

In addition, Judicial Watch also released a new batch of emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton connected to the Benghazi attack. Included is an email chain showing that Clinton slept late the Saturday after the Benghazi attack and missed a meeting that her staff had been trying to set up about sensitive intelligence issues, including the Presidential Daily Brief, on a day she was to make a slew of phone calls to foreign leaders.

Also included in the documents is an email from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, sent three days after the attack, describing then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “contemptible on a level not seen in past contemptible political figures” and a “mixture of greedy ambition and hollowness.”

The documents contain an email passed to Clinton in the days following the Benghazi attack in which the father of alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl anguishes over the “‘Crusade’ paradigm” which he says “will never be forgotten in this part of the world.”

An email from former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Clinton expresses his concern about “Christian Dominionists who seek to turn [the military] into an instrument of their religious zealotry.”

Other emails show approval of an effort to blame an Internet video on the Benghazi attack that aired on the Al Jazeera network.

The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of several court orders in two separate Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits for Clinton Benghazi material.  (The court orders are dated July 31, 2015, October 9, 2015, and October 20, 2015.)  The documents have been made public only because Judicial Watch’s litigation has forced the State Department to conduct additional searches.

The new Benghazi documents include email traffic showing that on the Saturday two days after the Benghazi terrorist attack Hillary Clinton slept past staff efforts to set up an intelligence briefing:

From: Hanley, Monica
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 09:17 AM
To: ‘HDR22@clintonemail.com’ <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
Cc: ‘huma@clintonemail.com’ <huma@clintonemail.com>
Subject: PDB

Dan will be at Whitehaven with the PDB at 9:30am this morning.

He has some sensitive items that he would like to personally show you when he arrives.

***

From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Hanley, Monica R
Subject: Re: PDB

I just woke up so I missed Dan. Could he come back after I finish my calls? But I don’t have the call schedule yet so I don’t know when that would be. Do you?

From: Hanley, Monica R [mailto:HanleyMR@state.gov]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:51 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: PDB

A pouch with all of your call sheets and the schedule in en route to you. Here it is below as well.

Also in the pouch are a few read items, and an action memo authorizing the War Powers resolution for Tunisia that the office would like you to approve today. Ops can send a courier over to pick up the action memo later today.

12:00 UK FM Hague
12:15 Egyptian FM Amr
12:30 Israeli PM Netanyahu
1:15 French FM Fabius
1:30 Saudi FM Saud al-Faisal
2:00 Somali Former Transitional President Sharif
2:15 Libyan PM-elect Abu-Shakour
2:30 Turkish FM Davutoglu
3:00 Somali President Mohamoud (T)

-Moroccan King is still pending.

-NEW CALL: King Juan Carlos of Spain called today and offered anytime today or tomorrow. His office relayed that it is a personal call inquiring after the status of the Embassies in the Middle East. We are working on a call sheet.

The State Department’s records include a September 14, 2012, email from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton in which Blumenthal passes along a controversial article by his son Max and attacks then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:48 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: m.guardian.co.uk

Max knows how to do this and fearless. Hope it’s useful and gets around, especially in the Middle East.

Keep speaking and clarifying. Your statements have been strong. Once through this phase, you might clarify history of US policy on Arab Spring, what has been accomplished, US interests at stake, varying relations with Libya & Egypt, etc.

Romney, of course, is contemptible, but contemptible on a level not seen in past contemptible political figures. His menace comes from his emptiness. His greed is not limited simply to mere filthy lucre. The mixture of greedy ambition and hollowness is combustible. He will do and say anything to get ahead, and while usually self-immolating he is also destructive. Behind his blandness lies boundless ignorance, ignited by consistently wretched judgment. His recent statements are of a piece with everything he has done from naming Ryan to his welfare ads, etc.

Keep speaking…

xo

Sid

The Blumenthal email includes a link to an article by his son Max Blumenthal that suggests that American conservatives, Zionists and the Israel government were behind the Internet video that was falsely linked by Clinton and Barack Obama to the Benghazi attack.  Clinton responded with an approving, “Your Max is a Mitzvah.” Another email shows that Mrs. Clinton wanted three copies of the Max Blumenthal Benghazi video article printed out.  (Max Blumenthal is a leftist journalist known for his attacks on Israel and American foreign policy.  In January, 2015, he is quoted calling American Sniper hero Chris Kyle an “unrepentant, sadistic killer.”)

In addition to Blumenthal’s attack on Romney, the newly released documents also include an email chain forwarded to Clinton from her former State Department deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan in which Robert Bergdahl, the father of alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, relates the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens to what the senior Bergdahl calls the “‘Crusade’ paradigm:”

Please convey our abiding condolences to everyone in the Foreign Service. Your service is most notable and almost invisible. Our Nation is stumbling through a very volatile world. The “Crusade” paradigm will never be forgotten in this part of the world and we force our Diplomats to carry a lot of baggage around while walking on eggshells.

Be very careful my friend!

I’m very sorry,

bob

After receiving the email from Mr. Bergdahl, Mrs. Clinton orders a response (which is not disclosed) be prepared.

The new documents also contain an email from former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Clinton concerning the Benghazi attack, in which he suggests the military is being compromised “Christian Dominionists” in the U.S. military:

From: Joe Wilson
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:27 AM
To: H
Subject: From Joe Wilson

Dear Hillary, …

Glen Doherty [CIA contractor killed in the Benghazi attack] was a fellow member of the Military Religious Freedom Advisory Board, which fights to ensure that our military is not further compromised by the Christian Dominionists who seek to turn it into an instrument of their religious zealotry, an army for Christ rather than for the defense of our nation. He was invaluable in helping us uncover several cases where religious indoctrination was taking place under the guise of military training….

“These new Benghazi emails are disturbing and show why Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration had to be forced to disclose them,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton, despite knowing that terrorists were responsible for the attack, allowed her spokesman to go to the Arab world and blame an Internet film.  Hillary Clinton trafficked in fantastical conspiracy theories that suggested both American conservatives and Israel were to blame for the Benghazi attack and jihadist violence in the Muslim world.  And the crazed email from Sidney Blumenthal shows that she was taking direction on her Benghazi spin based upon attack-style presidential campaign politics.  Finally, the ‘I just got up’ email shows that, smack dab in the middle of the Benghazi crisis, Hillary Clinton fell behind and may have not been fully briefed as she began an intense round of phone calls to foreign leaders.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits filed in 2014 and 2015 forced the release of these records.

The first lawsuit, filed on September 4, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)), sought:

  • All records concerning notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The second FOIA lawsuit, filed on May 6, 2015, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692), sought:

  • All emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012 to January 31, 2013.

As Judicial Watch chief investigator reporter Micah Morrison detailed last month, Sidney Blumenthal advised Clinton on Libya (and may have had business interests there).  The JW report also disclosed how Hillary Clinton emailed classified information to Blumenthal in response to his lobbying for Amb. Wilson’s efforts to secure taxpayer financing for an energy project in Africa. Hillary Clinton’s contacts with Blumenthal, who was also a highly paid employee of the Clinton Foundation, should have been subject to State Department ethics reviews for conflicts of interest, as promised by Mrs. Clinton.  For example, in January 2009, Hillary Clinton promised President Obama and United States Senate considering her confirmation that:

If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Obama Administration’s disturbing negligence in foreign affairs

A disturbing attitude from America’s Commander-in-Chief and his appointees was in full view during the past week.

On Capitol Hill, former Secretary of State Clinton testified that she didn’t see and wasn’t informed of numerous, desperate pleas for additional security at the Benghazi facility. It’s a lose-lose situation for her; either she was negligent in her oversight responsibilities, or her judgment was so poor in the matter that it led to a disastrous result.

There was little or no discussion of why the Administration helped topple former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who had moved to the same side as the U.S. in fighting al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood. This pointless and counterproductive move gave rise to the conditions which resulted in the chaos that gave rise to the Benghazi attack, just as the President’s reckless and premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq gave rise to the conditions that allowed ISIS to come to power which, in turn, resulted in Iran’s huge growth of influence in the Middle East as the only force on the ground willing to take them on.

At the White House, Mr. Obama threatened to veto what is, essentially, his own defense spending bill in an effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where terrorists are housed in a setting where no American civilians can be harmed. He also seeks to use his veto threat as a way of forcing Congress to comply with his effort to shift funds from the defense budget, which is substantially smaller than when he took office, (and accounting for only 18% of the federal budget and a significantly lower share of GDP than it has for decades) to entitlements (although not social security) which have expanded greatly, without any success in reducing poverty.  Speaking of things Cuban, the President has also failed to explain why, one month after Havana agreed to allow the Russian Navy to return to its cold war base on the island nation, he, strangely, rewarded this threatening action by restoring relations with Castro’s government.

The President, it has been noted, has failed in the past to regularly attend his own staff’s national security briefings. He appears uninterested at a time when troubling events, some of which are the results of his own inattention, are placing the world in greater danger than at any time since the conclusion of the Second World War.

Throughout the tenure of the current White House and throughout the stewardship of both Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry, there has been an almost childlike attitude towards international affairs. The President and his appointed Secretaries of State seem to believe that if they simply pretend a threat doesn’t exist, it will go away. Those who disagree with this reality have only one alternative explanation: the President believes that it is America that is causing the world’s problems, a conviction that is contrary to the facts. In this line of thinking, it better to let others—Russia, Iran, etc., take the lead. If this is, indeed, his belief, he has not had the honesty or the courage to share this view with his constituency.
You are advised to practice kegel exercises to strengthen PC muscles and that helps to produce more seminal fluid naturally are dark chocolate, banana, eggs, asparagus, and brand viagra prices spinach. Further, the condition may viagra buy australia also found genetic. Tadalafil would be to counter ED whereas Dapoxetine cheap viagra no prescription tackles premature release of the male fluid. However, the price may vary and the customer service will decide about online prescriptions for cialis the final quote they can offer you for your laptop.
Mr. Obama is determined to pursue his expensive (and so far, unproductive) domestic agenda at all costs. But presidents do not have the luxury of simply ignoring 50% of their responsibility.  They can neither focus on domestic affairs to the exclusion of foreign affairs, nor vice-versa. They do not have the moral or Constitutional right to completely reverse course on key areas of policy and practice, in this case national defense and foreign affairs, without a candid disclosure of intention to Congress and the people.

Since the current administration came to power, and as a specific result of White House actions, the already weakened American military has shriveled to a dangerously low level, unprecedented since before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Additionally, relations with allies have deteriorated to an extraordinary degree. The United Kingdom, Poland, Philippines, and Israel are all prime examples.  There is staggering loss of trust in the dependability of Washington as a partner for safety and peace.

Truly bad actors on the international stage seem to have been given carte blanche to engage in the type of actions that has typified aggressors throughout history.   Russia clearly seeks to regain the full international power of the Soviet Union, with a new military that is far more efficient and modern.  China, having benefited from its acquisition of American technology (President Clinton’s allowance of a sale of a Cray supercomputer in the 1990’s, as well as cyber-theft) moves confidentially and illegally to exert control over the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans. North Korea and Iran move forward with advanced missile and nuclear technology. Terrorist forces, not just in the Middle East but also in Latin America, Africa and Afghanistan have attained unprecedented levels of power and influence.

As all this occurs, the President focuses on boutique ideological issues such as the closing of Guantanamo Bay and continuing his give-away programs to his core constituency.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Flawed candidates, flawed parties

What does it say about the legal, cultural and political environment of America in the 21st century when the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land have at times openly ignored the law, and when one has zero experience in governance, and the other has a stunning record of total failure and duplicity during her time as part of a presidential administration?

While irrelevant issues have always had far too great an influence in presidential politics, the United States has apparently entered into an era where the race for the White House has a distinct resemblance to a Kardashian-like reality TV show.

Journalists seek access, so many have failed to openly confront either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on their obvious and significant shortcomings as a potential Commander in Chief.

Clinton has a record of ethical questionability and scandals extending back to her earliest days in government. Recently, her tenure as Secretary of State was marked by the “reset” with Russia, one of the most significant failures in American diplomacy. Her blatant mismanagement and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi attack are still under investigation, as is her apparent carelessness with state secrets evident in her use of a personal email server for official communications, including those considered top secret. Indeed, the Obama-Clinton record in Middle Eastern affairs as a whole is a study in amateurism, if not worse, in foreign affairs.

The worse may be yet to come, as questions about her approval of the sale of uranium to Moscow and another serious allegation of influence peddling have yet to be fully explored.

Ms. Clinton is apparently aware of the threat to her campaign from all of these issues, as she has vigorously avoided frank meetings with the media, and her allies in the Democratic National Committee do their best to delay debates with other party candidates.

Leading the GOP pack, Donald Trump scored high marks with fellow Republicans by discussing problems with China and illegal immigration that the party leadership, to its discredit, has failed to adequately address. But serious questions about his intentions remain unanswered. Why did he consult with Clinton before entering the race? He has bragged about his ties to the Clintons, and his current claim to allegiance to the GOP is belied by his extensive past contributions to Democrats.

These pharmacy sites offer extensively detailed information about a cialis 20mg generika popular ED treatment for curing erections’ weakness. It is FDA approved product of Pfizer pharmaceuticals that contains cialis buy the same ingredient sildenafil citrate. Sildenafil Citrate) which is used to increase blood flow to the penis and may help men with erectile difficulties to alleviate anxiety and restlessness, and cheap viagra selling here thus easily get erections naturally. The reason why this medicine is dominant among others is its cheap price and false promises, taking a lethal drug into your system is not working effectively. price of viagra pills His headline-making pejorative comments about women and Mexicans are a gift, intended or not, to the Clinton camp, underscoring an already underperforming relationship Republicans have with those two demographics. His refusal to rule out a third-party run that would make a Democrat victory far more likely is a serious threat. During the recent debate, his claims to have purchased influence through campaign contributions raises substantive ethical and legal questions.

The two campaigns say a great deal about the parties they operate within.

Republican voters have become increasingly enraged about their party leaders’ failure to stand up for the principles the GOP purports to stand for. Even after gaining control of both houses of Congress, Republicans have failed to exercise power in any meaningful way. A key constituency within the GOP, the Tea Party, complains that organizational chiefs have been more confrontational with them than with the White House.

That anger has become incendiary, leading another presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, to white-hot criticisms of Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Despite Cruz’s revolt, Trump has been the beneficiary of the growing split between the party faithful and GOP leadership.

Ms. Clinton’s belief that she can avoid a great deal of the expected contact with the press, and Democrat leadership’s failure to distance itself from her history of misdeeds and policy failures, points to a party with a lackluster bullpen of candidates and a hidebound adherence to dogmas that have only worsened the challenges America faces at home and abroad. The fact that Bernie Sanders, a curmudgeonly old-school socialist who is not even a registered Democrat is closing in on Ms. Clinton describes much about the state of the party.

Beyond all the descriptions (or criticisms) of character and career histories, the two candidates have gained popularity based on their message. For disgruntled Republicans, the lack of attention by party leaders to illegal immigration and the rise of China, issues Trump has concentrated on, have driven many to support him. Hillary Clinton’s role as a standard bearer for various victimization groups, her hard-left positions, and her connection to the original (Bill) Clinton administration loom large.

As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen whether the flaws in both candidates overcome their roles as symbols for the causes and issues they headline.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Administration’s odd idea of “victory”

Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have claimed at various times that Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of America’s troops from Iraq was a “victory” for the President.  Similarly, they have supported and encouraged the release of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

A review of the facts questions that assertion. Al Qaeda and Iran threaten to take over Iraq, a nation that stood on the path of becoming a peaceful, tolerant state at the end of the Bush Administration. Not perfect and facing major challenges, but on its way to becoming a responsible member of the world community, it is now in danger of being in the clutches of terrorists and a terrorist state in the absence of a countervailing western influence.  The battle to take over Iraq has been led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from Guantanamo Bay by Mr. Obama in 2009.

That’s viagra pharmacy because you need a product that’s tailored to a woman’s specific needs — and not one that’s designed for preventing or treating erectile dysfunction. In addition to that some widespread causes of poor libido viagra ordering and ejaculation problem. you can try these out purchase viagra online They wear pyjamas and yello slashes, shouting loud hee-yas across the quiet mountains. NLP aims to re-program midwayfire.com viagra online sample the thought patterns of the patients. Precisely the same road is being paved by the White House in Afghanistan. Rather than take the steps necessary to truly slash the strength of the Taliban, the White House has released the top Taliban leadership held at Guantanamo Bay, figures who are seen as the worst of the worst. Combined with the announced withdrawal of U.S. combat forces in 2016 and the general unpreparedness of the Afghan government’s forces, the Taliban has been substantially restored to the status quo ante before the 9/11/01 attack.

An odd concept of success.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Silence on National Security Issues Reaches Crisis Levels

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.