Muslim Brotherhood – USA Gov Policy

Think about this alternative history idea for a few moments: following years of war, President Roosevelt surveys the dramatically high casualty count of the D-Day invasion on the Normandy beaches in France and decides to focus on repairing U.S. relations with the Germany. He apologizes for any insults America may have made to the German people. He expresses willingness, however, to work with allies on ongoing military efforts, but declines to have the U.S. take a leadership role. He subsequently slashes the U.S. defense budget.

The Obama Administration’s premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, its announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan, its failure to respond to the Benghazi assault, its lack of effective action against ISIS, the release of key personnel from Guantanamo Bay, and its support of Muslim Brotherhood movements throughout the Middle East has reinvigorated and strengthened the terrorist movement. It has combined those actions with significant tactical errors, such as deposing the Gaddafi regime in Libya which provided al Qaeda with a significant advantage in that nation.

The central concept behind the White House strategy is that victory in this conflict is unattainable, or too costly. There may also be a perception that the idea of winning is offensive to the larger Islamic population. In a speech at the National Defense University in 2013, President Obama stated that “Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror.”

Mr. Obama has subsequently issued delusional statements. In his 2015 State of the Union address, while ISIS was rampaging through Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram was advancing in Africa, the Taliban was gaining strength in Afghanistan, and extremist rebels were attacking the government of Yemen, he alleged that “the shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.” There were and are no facts whatsoever to support his comment.

Clearly, the public has grown far less confident about America’s strategy. In a Rasmussen poll conducted earlier this month http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update

“The number of voters who believe terrorists are winning the fight against the United States and its allies continues to grow, while views of Muslims in general and U.S. relations with the Islamic world have worsened. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s down from the 33% measured in March, but still above findings for most of last year. But now 39% think the terrorists are winning the war, up from 33% in the previous survey and the highest level of pessimism since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Since, there has been for sale levitra continuous increment in the population of senior citizens, mainly men and it is an incurable disease. It is unsafe to use drumstick fruits and leaves during pregnancy and lactation period regencygrandenursing.com viagra generika as it can lead to side effects and complications. These effects can be useful for those who don’t have any problem with erectile dysfunction, but simply want to get that extra edge, then enrolling for a Texas adult driving ed class would make a person attains his harder erection in just tadalafil without prescriptions 30 minutes. Talk therapy, counseling and interpersonal therapy are most widely used to cialis tablets uk address the ’emotional’, or ‘feelings’ side of the person.
The Center for Security Policy https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ recently assembled a team of military, diplomatic, and national security experts to analyze the challenges imposed by terrorism. According to their report, the fight can be successful if multi-faceted tactics similar to those employed by the Reagan Administration against the Soviet Union are employed. The strategies include:

Strengthening the U.S. military. The diminished state of America’s armed forces has emboldened both terrorists and adversarial states, including Iran, to engage in hostile behavior.
Counter-ideological warfare. The concept of freedom was a powerful weapon in toppling the USSR’s leadership. The U.S. must again use the concept to convince Muslims that the radical leaders who seek to subject both fellow believers and others into submission to their extremist views is an unhealthy path.
Extensive use of intelligence operations, cyber warfare, psychological endeavors, and clandestine and special operations should be employed against terrorists.
Economic warfighting. The use of a central/financial component to stigmatize Shariah adherents.
Confronting pre-violent jihadist. Muslim Brotherhood operations that seek to legitimize extremist views must be countered.

The concept of actually winning the war against terrorism seems strange to a certain wing of political leaders, just as the idea that the Soviet Union could actually be toppled seemed odd to, generally, the same ideological group. Without a sense that victory is attainable, however, the chances of ending the threat may not come about.

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/