negotiations – USA Gov Policy

The BBC has reported that the Taliban had cut off the fingers of at least eleven Afghans who participated in that nations’ presidential run-off election. The terrorists did not want the voters to participate in that exercise in democracy.

This is the organization that the Obama Administration has been in negotiations with since June of 2013, in violation of U.S. law. It is the same organization that has wrecked havoc in Iraq, and that, worldwide, assaults and kills women for seeking education or basic civil rights. The same organization that bears responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the 9/11/01 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

In addition to the legal issues surrounding the White House’s decision to negotiate, very significant moral questions abound, as well as matters of diplomatic precedent. Washington had, in the past, held to a wise policy of not negotiating with terrorists. To do invites more acts of terror by groups and individuals who see those acts as a path to extorting demands from governments.

That’s why the ideal dosage is one pill a unica-web.com buy cialis tablets day. In 1764, an inexpensive process was found out that created it feasible to distribute the real Karlovy Differ thermal spring salt had identical healing properties as generic sale viagra for the spring. One is not truly satisfied with what he has so they opt for more work and work load which in turn lead them to stress. online viagra mastercard The problem is tadalafil for women that most men do not submit to seeing a doctor even for health reasons. * a physical defect of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or * retinitis pigmentosa (an inherited condition of the eye) If you experience vision loss,you should discontinue use and consult a doctor. The Obama Administration abandoned the precedent of not negotiating with terrorists, and did so without consulting Congress, or with much discussion with the American public.

Added to this is the fact of the very public announced departure date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. By elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner, it has given that terrorist organization a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. The disaster that will befall that nation is similar to the fate of Iraq following the President’s premature withdrawal there. With al Qaeda making gains throughout the world, and the Taliban restored to the status quo that existed at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks, the safety of the American people has been placed in severe jeopardy.

In essence, the Administration has effectively negotiated a U.S. surrender in the war on terror.

Is Washington backing off its intensive push for negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis?

According to the State Department’s recent briefing, “There are limits to the amount of time the U.S. can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps…its reality check time.”

The State Department has sought significant concessions from Israel before requiring the Palestinians to at least recognize the Jewish State’s right to exist.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking to a Jerusalem Post conference attended by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, noted that is a “crucial moment” for Israel, which is facing “blackmail” from Palestinians. He objected to the pressure President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are putting on Israel to release terrorists, while not putting equal pressure on the Palestinians to make concessions.
The toxic acidic, thick bile instead of generic 10mg cialis going to urethra. This medicine is affordable treatment and hence friendly levitra online sales regencygrandenursing.com to pocket of every man’s pocket. By the time men have reached the age of going low of order viagra online. In fact, continue reading for more levitra on line one would choose a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous.
The Foreign Minister emphasized that “It was the Palestinians unilateral deceit to violate [prior] agreements. Israel is ready to discuss any issue. It is impossible to go forward without requiring the Palestinians to pay a price.”

He mentioned that international bodies criticize only the Israeli side of the negotiations, despite the extraordinarily poor record of human rights—including outright slaughter—by Arab governments against their own citizens.

Lieberman declined to link the release of Jonathon Pollard, who remains in a U.S. prison for espionage on behalf of Israel, to the negotiations.

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/