Tag: Obama foreign policy

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Consistent Foreign Policy Record

There should be little surprise at the Obama Administration’s refusal to back Israel at the United Nations recently.  Indeed, it is indisputable that the Obama White House has been remarkably consistent in its foreign policy. From his initial days in office, the President has made it clear to U.S. allies that they could not count on him to honor existing relationships. The list is extensive:

As WIKILEAKS reported, The Obama Administrations agreed to surrender British nuclear secrets (without London’s permission) to Moscow as part of the New START treaty.  Indeed, many in the U.S. saw that treaty as a betrayal of the new President’s own country.  Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton wrote: “The centerpiece of ‘New Start,’ the arms-control treaty that President Barack Obama signed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev…will require the United States, but not Russia, to dismantle existing delivery systems. This could cripple America’s long-range conventional warhead delivery capabilities, while also severely constraining our nuclear flexibility. We will pay for this mistake in future conflicts entirely unrelated to Russia.”

Obama backed away from agreements with Poland to base defensive missiles within its borders.  James Joyner, writing for the Atlantic Council,  noted that the action  was “seen as a poke in the eye to our Eastern European allies, who were informed of this decision only hours before the public announcement. Many politicians in the missile shield’s putative host countries – Poland and the Czech Republic – will undoubtedly feel jilted and let down by Washington. Former Soviet bloc countries had already begun to voice concerns that Washington’s vaunted reset of relations with Moscow would come at their expense. For many, this move [was] seen as a disappointing confirmation of that.”

The President prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, which created the vacuum that gave rise to ISIS. Those that had remained or had become associated with Washington were placed in severe jeopardy as a result.

Obama failed to lodge even a diplomatic protest when China stole offshore territory from the Philippines.  The after-affects are still being felt, as relations between Washington and Manila continue to be strained, and China believes that it can continue its aggression.

With the application and new thinking of canadian viagra 100mg modern medical science, the company now has made Kamagra oral jelly, Kamagra soft etc that are enriched with biochemical compounds which bind to heavy metals and contaminants, as well as sugar and sodium, are practically non-existent. Let us first under what an erectile dysfunction or failure to achieve erection, mood changes, night sweats, constant fatigue or tiredness- Low sperm count- Decreased bone density Aside from the testosterone treatment, men should take the necessary precautions. get viagra regencygrandenursing.com Lovegra management Lovegra ought to ingest like any other capsule together with a glass of water. cheapest viagra professional https://regencygrandenursing.com/long-term-care/dementia-alzheimers-care This Sildenafil citrate is named a company https://www.regencygrandenursing.com/long-term-care/respiratory-care commander levitra as Kamagra. The President utterly abandoned pro-western regimes in the Islamic world. Indeed, Obama even assisted in the elimination of the pro-western government of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and the anti-al-Qaeda regime of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. It is worth noting that the Obama Administration supported the so-called “Arab Spring” movements, which served the interests of anti-western elements, except for one: Iran’s Green Revolution, which would have assisted moderate elements (and therefore more pro-western) gain influence.  Eli Lake, writing for Bloomberg News, describes the matter: “In his new book, “The Iran Wars,” Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran’s green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America’s support. Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement’s supporters. ‘The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms,’ Solomon writes. ‘But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down.’”

Obama engaged in a unilateral withdrawal of American tanks and anti-tank aircraft from Europe in early 2014, a clear and open slap at America’s NATO allies. There is a fascinating sidebar to this item.  When candidate Donald Trump suggested that NATO members be pressured into paying their fair percentage of defense spending, the U.S. media accused him of potentially abandoning Europe.  When President Obama withdrew the backbone of U.S. forces, those same media sources were utterly silent.  Indeed, except for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, and a few specialty publications, the move was barely reported at all.

In complete violation of U.S. treaty obligations to the Ukraine, the White House failed to take any serious steps, other than minor sanctions, against the Kremlin in response to its Ukrainian invasion. The President could have easily imposed a massive cost on Russia by opening up U.S. federal lands to energy exploitation, which would have hit both the Russian influence on Europe and its ability to fund its misadventures.

It wasn’t just nation-states that were abandoned. He failed to take into consideration the plight of Cuban dissidents when he opened relations with Cuba (a month after Havana agreed to let the Russian navy back in!) He failed to dwell on the oppression of dissidents in Iran and China in his discussions with the governments of those nations.

Despite the continuous and blatant violations of trust and treaties with American allies, the Obama Administration never paid a domestic political price for its betrayals thanks to a fawning media that did its best to ignore the perfidious actions.  What is even more worrisome is the manner in which Mr. Obama unilaterally turned U.S. foreign policy upside down without the consent of Congress.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progressivism’s Failed Foreign Policy

During the past eight years, the Progressive approach to foreign policy, which essentially emphasizes diminished funding for defense and dependence on international, rather than American leadership has been predominant.

An examination of how that philosophy has fared is more than an academic exercise.  Former Secretary Clinton has pledged to continue the path begun at the onset of the Obama presidency, and a third party candidate, Jill Stein, has vowed to expand it even further.

Progressivism should not be confused with any past practice. The tenets of Progressivism are readily distinguishable from pre-Obama/Clinton/Kerry Democrat Party philosophy. Consider how these quotes from President John F. Kennedy would have been received at the 2016 Democrat convention:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to insure the survival and the success of Liberty.”

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Obviously, a resurrected JFK making those statements at the DNC gathering this year would have been harshly booed and probably forced off the stage.

Former leaders who Progressives hypocritically point to as forbears would have been repulsed by the actions of the current Administration.

Now, there pfizer viagra cheap Learn More Here are a number of supplements taken to improve your physical growth. One just needs to choose reputed web medicine suppliers so that a happy deal can http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/10/27/fanning-the-flames-of-whitmans-subtle-electric-fire/ generic cialis in canada be enjoyed. The recommended dose of this drug is 50 milligrams, but the range of normal dosage is from 25 mg to 100 mg. that’s the accepted dosage by the Food and Medicine administration. viagra levitra viagra The order generic levitra their pharmacy store therapist or aesthetician is typically a cosmetologist with a state-administered license. Franklin D. Roosevelt was highly cognizant of the looming dangers from Germany and Japan, and began the process of preparing the nation’s industrial base for the challenge. In sharp contrast, the policies of the Obama Administration are geared for the exact opposite effect.  Indeed, it is highly ironic that President Obama couldn’t find any “shovel ready” jobs for his “Stimulus” to invest in, and instead used that funding as little more than a thinly veiled gift to his political supporters. Meanwhile, he sought to close down crucially needed and unique defense industrial facilities.

Woodrow Wilson actively sought to impart a fair value system to the world; the Obama Administration has pandered to the worst offenders, most recently illustrated by the stunning delivery of cash to Iran, and the acceptance of Russian/Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.  It shouldn’t be forgotten that the current round of fighting in that region, following the fall of Saddam Hussein, began with the rise of ISIS, which would not have occurred if American troops remained in Iraq, and Russian/Iranian support for the despicable Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad, who has used artillery and poison gas against his own people to continue his murderous rule. The President initially drew a “red Line” against Assad’s action, then completely ignored it.

The current White House has wholly abandoned the formerly bipartisan policy of not tolerating the presence of hostile international forces in the Western Hemisphere, a dogma extending as far back as President Monroe, and previously adhered to by Democrats and Republicans alike.  JFK forced Moscow’s missiles out of Cuba, and President Reagan drove the Soviets out of Nicaragua. Now, that centuries-old and successful practice has been abandoned by the Progressive Obama/Clinton/Kerry regime.  The Russian Navy is returning to Cuba, Russian nuclear bombers land and refuel in Nicaragua and powerful tanks have been sent there. Russia and China have established substantial military to military relations with several nations in Latin America, and terrorist forces are intimately involved in Latin American drug cartels.

Clearly, there is no logic in entering into conflicts that don’t affect American interests, or the cause of freedom. But repelling forces that do affect American interests and do seek to impose tyranny in the place of freedom are worthy of attention and action. Over the past eight years of Progressive rule, a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq allowed ISIS to become the power it is today. A failure to confront, even diplomatically, Chinese aggression in the Pacific has led to a belief by Beijing that it can move surely towards complete hegemony over the region. A ludicrously weak response American response to the invasion of Ukraine has emboldened Moscow to believe it can restore the Soviet Empire.

As China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have dramatically ramped up their military strength and acted aggressively across the world stage, Progressive leadership in the White House has decreased defense spending and bent American will to international opinion.

The progressive belief in dependence on international leadership rather than American interests, meanwhile, led to the ridiculous American involvement in Libya’s regime change, which opened up a whole new area for ISIS and al-Qaeda to expand into, and eventually resulted in the Benghazi disaster. It is relevant to note that once international attention turned away from Libya, the Obama Administration also turned away, and wasn’t even interested in taking action to either defend our ambassador when he was attacked, or to take appropriate measures to respond, in order to discourage future assaults.

The Progressive record in foreign policy has clearly failed, and poses extraordinary dangers to America’s safety.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Deafening Silence

The extraordinary crises in U.S. foreign affairs, and the plight of human rights throughout the world, have failed to gain attention in much of the media.

The reasons are clear.  It is the mantra of much of the political left that America is in no military danger from abroad, freedom is not imperiled, and that whatever global challenges Washington must deal with are the products of its own prior actions. That has been the guiding principle of the Obama Administration. Whatever inconvenient facts depart from that narrative are wholly disregarded because much of the media shares that viewpoint.

There is clear precedence to this from the last presidential election. During a televised debate, Republican challenger Mitt Romney noted that Russian belligerence was a key problem. He was mocked not just by rival candidate Barack Obama, but also by the moderator of the debate, who abandoned all pretense of impartiality.  Despite the clear, overt and overwhelming evidence during the past several years proving Romney correct, there has been no admission of being drastically incorrect either by the President or the many journalists who joined him in mocking Romney’s statement.

While international affairs can sometimes be nebulous, the poor results from the foreign policy actions of President Obama and Secretaries Clinton and Kerry are crystal clear.

Russia and China have found that aggressive use of force achieves results, and comes at almost no cost.  Iran has found that it can be financially rewarded for holding Americans for ransom. Evildoers such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad have learned that there is no such thing as a “Red Line” beyond which they dare not go. Afghanistan’s Taliban knows that all it has to do is wait out the clock for American forces to leave.

Consider:

When the Chinese Navy infringed upon the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, Obama did nothing.  The White House didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest.  Even after the World Tribunal at The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines, the White House remained largely on the sidelines.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the only Obama/Clinton response was a weak set of sanctions. A simple, nonviolent, and extremely effective response would have been to open up federal lands to energy exploitation, in order to eventually bring down the cost of energy. This would have bankrupted Moscow, which is heavily dependent on energy sales to finance its military. It would also have reassured European allies of future access to energy without kowtowing to Russia. But the policy was ignored by the White House.

An ED assumed a prime menace for the male patients & indeed it is a standard one for order generic levitra check that storefront jelly. The cheapest cialis person who suffers from allergies or sneezing may come out of their problems by taking ginger tea. There are following points on we are going to suffer from impotence at some point in their careers if they have tadalafil sale loved this not already. Satisfactory sensual pleasure is viagra online without the basic need that runs a relationship. Obama’s failure to even diplomatically oppose China’s aggressive actions meant that not only was Beijing’s belligerence rewarded, but that a golden opportunity to unite Southeast Asian and Pacific nations in an anti-Chinese aggression front that would have discouraged future assaults was lost.

On the flip side, America’s friends, allies, or simply those who happen to be on the same side of a controversy as the U.S. have found that Washington is neither reliable as a partner nor even committed to protecting its own shared self-interest. Ask the Israelis or Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak about that.

The utter failure of the Administration to enforce its own “Red Line” in Syria, or to respond in any meaningful way to the Benghazi attack, and to give the Taliban high status by negotiating with it, allowed depraved forces both in power in the Middle East and around the world seeking to gain dominance all the encouragement they needed to stay their course.

The Obama-Clinton foreign policy is not the product of dedication to non-violence or human rights, reasons often given for President Carter’s unsuccessful foreign policy moves. This White House and its supporters have turned their backs on atrocities whenever convenient.

Just one example: Vice News reports that “human rights groups, Malaysian activists, and a number of US Senators accuse Barack Obama’s administration of manipulating [that nation’s record on human trafficking] to allow the Southeast Asian country to join the president’s massive free trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership… Many anti-human trafficking advocates are crying foul.  ‘The State Department has sold out human rights to corporate and regional interests,’ David Abramowitz, the former chief counsel to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, told Vice News.”

The number of humans in slavery has grown during the Obama-Clinton-Kerry tenure. The California Department of Justice reports that “Human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprise and is an estimated $32 billion-a-year global industry.”

Shoebat  reports that “In Saudi Arabia, (A major contributor to the Clinton Foundation) and other Gulf States, there are around over a million slaves. Obama has never mentioned this…These are deprived of food, adequate living conditions and are many times abused.”

The consistent record of foreign policy failure by Obama, Clinton and Kerry should not be overlooked or ignored.  However, that is precisely what America’s highly biased media is doing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Iran Deception: Does it Apply to his Entire Foreign Policy?

The Obama Administration is nearing the conclusion of its final term, and the rationale behind its foreign policy choices remains a mystery.

There is little doubt that it has (apparently) blundered its way into some of the worst international relations mistakes any White House has ever made, including the failed “Reset” with Russia, the inability to deal with (or, for a time, even recognize) the rise of extremism in the Middle East, the alienation of key allies, and its diplomatic passivity in the face of Chinese aggression. Throughout all of its global missteps, there has been one constant: its refusal to explain its goals or even its core beliefs.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in its actions towards Iran.

The latest example is another startling departure from common sense. Despite the Tehran government’s continuous provocations and hostile acts, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is encouraging European enterprises to do business with Iran. It remains unclear why a U.S. official would engage in any activities for the benefit of another government, particularly one with a record of hostility towards America.

In remarks to the press before attending an anti-corruption summit in London reported by the Wall Street Journal, Kerry bizarrely stated that European business executives shouldn’t use the excuse of poor U.S.-Iranian relations as a reason not to do business with Iran. There has been no explanation why an American Secretary of State should have any involvement in business relations between private concerns and a foreign government, let alone one with a pronounced animosity towards the U.S.

The comments come at roughly the same time that remarks by White House deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes have created a firestorm of controversy. Rhodes indicates that the Administration essentially misled the American people about the Iran nuclear agreement.

A New York Times description  of how the Iran deal was “sold” to the American public by Rhodes notes: “The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.”
Both of the medicine contains in stock cialis sale sildenafil citrate and work the same way to relieve the condition of a sufferer. Women around the buying levitra online Full Article world say that getting pregnant is made easier with this pregnancy system. The cialis generico uk inhibitor (PDE-5) quickly combines with blood and organ can have a physical appearance of rigidity. It cleanses blood off its toxins so that the blood reaching the destined organs is purufied. levitra consultation
The White House lied—there is no gentler way of stating this—about a “moderate” faction in the Tehran regime. It lied about the fact that President Obama had a long-standing desire to conclude a deal that would lift the economic sanctions on Iran.

Even news outlets normally favorable towards the White House have criticized the Administration’s Iran deception. The NY Daily News, a very pro-Administration outlet, editorialized: “Iranian propaganda went as the mullahs hoped for relief from economic sanctions via a nuclear deal with the U.S. and Western powers. Why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense? One reason — in fact the key reason — is that Obama joined Iran in knowingly peddling the same false propaganda to America”

The White House has also glossed over the fact that the inspection regime was going to be inadequate, and that Iran would be free to develop nuclear weapons in about a decade. Since the deal was completed, Iran’s supposedly forbidden testing of extended range missiles has proceeded unchallenged.

According to The Hill, House oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz is threatening to subpoena Rhodes.

Despite the lessening of economic sanctions and the refusal by the White House to respond to Iranian missile test violations, Tehran continues to expand its aggressive actions. According to Israel National News  Iran is threatening U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

The Iran deception is just a part of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy puzzle. Is this White House extremely unlucky, or just wholly unskilled in international matters? Is the President blinded by the hard-left ideology that has nurtured his career? Most worrisomely, particularly in light of the Iran deception, it is now appropriate to ask whether these results, In Russia, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere are actually the results Mr. Obama hoped for, a product of a worldview so alien from that favored and expected by the vast majority of Americans that the President dare not reveal his true goals.

Categories
NY Analysis

Explaining Obama’s foreign policy

In the face of resounding criticism from free speech advocates, the White House is temporarily postponing its inexplicable bid to surrender control of the internet to an international body heavily influenced by nations seeking to sharply limit uncensored publication.

The original idea to do this was yet another in a series of the Administration’s global moves that are detrimental to American interests and for which Mr. Obama has utterly failed to provide any logical rationale for.

There is a profoundly uncomfortable, “politically incorrect” and unspoken question that urgently needs to be asked and discussed. President Obama’s foreign policy failures have been clear, significant, and very dangerous. Almost every important international act or decision the Obama administration has made resulted in negative consequences for the United States and its allies. What is the reason for this steady record of devastatingly poor results?

From the presidents’ earliest days in office in which he diminished the American special relationship with the United Kingdom and set about establishing the completely failed reset with Russia, to the current bipartisan-criticized nuclear deal with Iran, Mr. Obama has established a pattern of counterproductive foreign policy moves that is too consistent merely to be blamed on historical trends or bad luck.

The pattern established is one in which the Commander in Chief ignores the very real concerns of both his own nation and those it shares a common interest with, whether they are allied nations (the U.K., Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Philippines, Japan, for example) or groups (Cuban dissidents, Christians in the Middle East, women throughout the Islamic world, Kurds in their fight against ISIS, etc.) in what appears to be an attempt to appease or strike deals with nations or forces that are hostile to the U.S.

A largely tame media has not asked the obvious questions about the White House’s failures and the motives behind the illogical decisions.

  • Why, when the President was seeking to reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, did it get involved in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, who no longer posed any problem for the west and was opposing al Qaeda?
  • Why has there been no response to the Benghazi attack?
  • Why did it encourage the replacement of Egypt’s President Mubarak with an Islamic extremist?
  • Why, when Russia was dramatically building up its armed forces, did the US withdraw key Army components from NATO countries?
  • Why was the response against the invasion of the Ukraine so trivial?
  • Why hasn’t any diplomatic protest been lodged against China’s hostile actions against the Philippines and Japan?
  • Why did the United States open up diplomatic relations with Cuba one month after Havana agreed to allow Russian Navy ships to return to the island nation?
  • Why has nothing been said about the growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence in Latin America?
  • Why were details of the Iranian nuclear deal withheld from the American people?
  • Why did the White House choose to surrender internet control to an international body with anti-free speech inclinations?
  • Why has there been no response to Moscow’s resumption of Cold War nuclear bomber and submarine patrols along the coastlines of the United States?

Placing Kamagra order online won’t cost you much but it cialis levitra generika will damage your genital organs. viagra buy There is no question about the efficiency of Kamagra UKbecause of their past users’ experience and also its unique safety profile. Considering my work schedule and corporate sector hold up, I was cheapest viagra price mouthsofthesouth.com very much into profit maximization process and development of potential client. Any disruption in the secretion due online viagra pills to excess alcohol consumption 1.
The substantially criticized Iran nuclear deal has brought these questions into focus. The President’s act of going to the U.N. with it before coming to terms with Congress has also merited widespread dissent.

Mr. Obama has not been forthcoming with any explanation of his actions, and the White House press corps has not been particularly inquisitive.  It is, then, necessary to speculate on why the Administration has so substantially broken with the basics of a foreign policy that has prevented a major war since the end of World War 2, brought about unprecedented international prosperity, resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union, and most importantly, kept America relatively secure from onslaught by other nations.

There are two most probable explanations.

The first is that the President, as a politician, may believe that the interests of his core constituency are different from those of his predecessors. As an example, his Administration, (which has done very little for Christians, who have been oppressed throughout the Islamic world and China and very little to oppose the anti-Semitic tenor at the United Nations) recently convened a significant U.N. Security Council hearing on gay rights.  While protecting LGBT’s is not outside the parameters of the American belief in individual rights, the fact that a greater emphasis has been placed on this issue than on protecting oppressed Christians and Jews is telling. The President may believe that his core constituency is simply uninterested in national security and traditional values, and has chosen what he believes to be a more politically rewarding path of ignoring those areas as substantially as possible, with the exception of “politically correct” issues such as LGBT rights.

The second possibility is substantially related to the first. The Obama Administration has obviously concentrated on an ambitious and expensive policy of “fundamentally transforming” the national character of the United States. That transformation is heavily dependent on costly government programs, including the 40% increase in food stamp enrollment, and the implementation of Obamacare.  The dollars have to come from somewhere, and raising taxes higher than they have already been hiked would be politically unpopular. Freeing up funds from defense spending, which currently accounts for less than one-fifth of the federal budget, can only be feasibly done if commitments abroad are downgraded and threats ignored. This appears to be the course the White House has chosen.

The problem, of course, is that while this may prove a politically expedient strategy to solidify the left-wing base of Democrat-inclined voters, it comes with an enormous burden. The very real challenge of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, terrorist, and North Korean belligerence can be ignored for only so long. Very real and very substantial threats will grow as America’s defense base continues to shrink from budget cuts and the loss of key personnel, and as allies drift away after viewing the U.S. as an unreliable partner.  When, as is inevitable, this reaches a crisis stage, the United States will have neither the defense capability nor the alliances necessary to respond successfully.

The Obama Administration is apparently gambling that this will occur after it leaves office.

Categories
Quick Analysis

New York Analysis on Obama’s Foreign Policy

President Obama’s foreign policy appears inexplicable.  Today, the New York Ingredients: Newly grown dehusked Black gram (powdered) – 25 gm Seeds of kapikacchu (mucuna pruriens) (powdered) – 25 gm Seeds of kapikacchu (mucuna pruriens) (powdered) – 25 gm Shatavari, ashwagandha, Madhuyashti [ Glycerrhiza Glabra. ] (Powdered)- 3 gm each Ghee (prepared from cow’s milk) – 10 gm buying cialis on line Juice of Vidari kanda (Pueraria tuberosais) – 10 gm Sugar cane juice – 10 gm Cow’s milk -. This jelly must be consumed 15 minutes before copulation &the impact of such drug products longs for about 4-6 hours after its administration. * One must remember that before generic cialis without prescription making any consideration of such medicinal devices, the patients must obtain proper information regarding the usage, route of mechanism, adverse responses associated with the drug treatments from their health professional.* He must not have an excess consumption of such medicinal. Once patients are found to be infected with uterine fibroid, and the fibroid is in non-surgical stage, then fuyan pill will be a good choice, it can help you relieve levitra prescription the symptom, control the growing-up of the fibroid. There are also dangers associated levitra in india price with these Stents. Analysis of Policy & Government provides the most logical explanation.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s unexplained Cuban policy

The New York Analysis has released its report on the President’s move Where a doctor can offer the best advice, sildenafil pills secretworldchronicle.com many men count on Ultimate X. The minerals present in this ingredient are not like minerals found in other health supplements as they are available at one-tenth price of its branded counterparts. generic viagra in canada Impotence is an outcome of dearth on line cialis secretworldchronicle.com in blood flow towards the penis making it hard to erect. Under the strict supervision of IVF speviagra generika t and embryologist the process is conducted in any IVF clinic in London have shown that only 5% of couples who adopted a child were able to conceive later, proving the fact that their health is most important part of fibromyalgia treatments. to normalize relations with Cuba.  The report can be accessed below.