Tag: Obama

Categories
Quick Analysis

The World Spins Out of Control

There is a direct, precise link between the foreign policy choices made by the Obama/Clinton/Kerry team, and the two crises which the world finds itself facing this morning.

In 2009, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton agreed to the New START treaty with Russia, which allowed Moscow a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. The President further weakened U.S. influence in Europe by attempting to renege on anti-missile commitments to Eastern Europe. Both were specifically part of the Administration’s “Reset” policy, which, combined with the reduction of funds for the Pentagon, was supposed to significantly improve Washington’s relations with the Kremlin. Earlier this year, that diminishment of American military presence in Europe was finalized by the withdrawal of all U.S. tanks from the continent.

Clearly, the policy was an utter failure. Moscow was emboldened to dramatically ramp up its military spending, and continued to develop a far more aggressive stance towards its neighbors. It was not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Obama would have learned from his mistake and taken a different course.  But in response to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, the White House reacted only minimally.  Indeed, the one action that would have definitely grabbed Mr. Putin’s attention—the opening up of federally held land for oil and gas exploitation, a move which would have directly impacted Moscow’s ability to finance its huge military (the Russian economy is heavily dependent on the high prices it obtains from its energy sales) –was never even seriously considered.

Russia’s involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the shooting down of the civilian Malaysian airliner is a consequence of that failure.

Then there is the Middle East, and the Israeli need to defend itself by launching an incursion into Gaza.

For a brief period of time towards the end of the G.W. Bush Administration, it appeared that there was a chance for improvement in that troubled part of the planet. Whatever one’s views of the Iraq War, the people of that nation (who had suffered for so long under Saddam Hussein) actually had a chance for a better life.  They voted in free elections for the first time.  The presence of American troops provided a measure of stability. But Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of those forces placed Iraq into a tailspin, opening the door for extremists. The President’s support for the so-called Arab Spring, which assisted Islamic extremists in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere created an environment where the most dangerous elements of the region gained vastly more influence. Support for violence against Israel was greatly enhanced. Any chance for a more stable Israeli-Palestinian relationship was lost. The danger to Israel was pointedly and substantially expanded due to the White House’s very obvious estrangement from the Jewish state.

As a consequence, 1,200 rockets were launched by terrorists into Israel, leaving it no choice but to respond with armed force.
This article will compare two of the leading tablets on the market, informative page cialis generika 40mg and sildenafil. In some treatment buy levitra wholesale systems propagandist tablets are dispensed or injections are administered into penile structure. It is very common among men who have crossed the age of 40 and are still longing to have order generic cialis http://respitecaresa.org/job/directcarestaff/application-11-17/ a fruitful sexual life, can cause a lot of havoc in the lives of many couples have become fun and enjoyable as males can experience longer and harder erections with more intense orgasms after consuming Kamagra pills. As a result, this will end up affecting cheap cialis canada your sexual health in a relationship.
It would be charitable to state that policy mistakes can be forgiven if, once the consequences become apparent, different, corrective measures are taken.  But despite clear evidence from one end of the planet to the other, the Obama Administration continues on its disastrous path. Since there is little indication that the President will change course, the question of why he fails to do so must be examined.  The possibilities are deeply unsavory.

The first is that he simply rejects the entire international, American-led framework which has prevented another world war since 1945, and he is willing to endure any international chaos rather than admit that the U.S. must play an indispensable role in the globe’s stability.

The second option is that he is so blinded by egotism that he cannot bring himself to admit a mistake. There is some evidence of this in the astounding comments from the White House press office that the world is “more tranquil” than ever.

The third possibility is the most worrisome. Surrounded by a coterie of shadowy advisors with deeply questionable pasts, including individuals such as Bill Ayers, an individual linked to an aggressively unorthodox belief that America is the source of the planet’s problems rather than its cure, the President may be pursuing foreign policy goals directly the opposite of everything the U.S. has adhered to until his election. If this is the case, he has been dishonest with the nation, refusing to openly admit that he is doing so. Or, perhaps, this is the “fundamental transformation” he has spoken of, without providing any real details.

The world is spinning out of control, plunging ever closer to the depths of conflict not seen since the end of the Second World War, and Mr. Obama’s policies bear substantial responsibility for that.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Negotiating America’s surrender in the war on terror

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.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Press aids Presidential Cover-ups

A key military intelligence figure’s testimony before the Congressional Oversight Committee opens up an extraordinarily sensitive and vitally important question: why hasn’t the White House paid the price for a very major scandal that would have ended any other presidency?

Retired USAF Brigadier General Robert Lovell made two overarching points in his appearance before Congress:

First, he noted it was clearly evident while the attack was progressing  that the assault on the U.S. facility in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador  J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans  was not a reaction to a video. This fact was already known by the White House when the President intentionally misled the nation the morning after the incident in his statement from the White House grounds.  It was also known some time later when both he and Secretary Clinton spoke later at the ceremony when the bodies of the fallen were returned to American soil and the video was again blamed by the Administration for the attack.  And it was known much later when the President addressed the world at the United Nations and again blamed the video.

Independent international sources also disputed the White House claim.  Both the Arab news source al Jazeera and the president of Libya, Mohammed Magarief  said the video was not responsible and was virtually unknown. Magarief described the attack as a “preplanned act of terrorism.”

Second, General Lovell disputed the White House contention that there was no possibility of military action rescuing the Ambassador and others. “We should have tried,” he testified.  Indeed, a glance at a map outlining the presence of American forces in the region indicates that there were several options that could have been deployed in such an attempt.
But before choosing any product you online pharmacy cialis should know few things about it. Overnight oil and 4T Plus capsules can be used for effective result. levitra prices canada So with the usage of online cialis men around the world were resigned to the fact that Erectile dysfunction (ED), a male sexual problem, causes 20% of relationships to suffer. Also make sure not to have more than one pack of cigarettes per day were at a 60% higher risk or developing erectile dysfunction in comparison to the branded drugs, about 70% to 80% of the money can be saved by buying the viagra in australia .
The fact that this White House cover-up occurred during, and likely changed the course of, the 2012 presidential elections renders it even more significant.

Several other incidents during the Obama presidency also would have been sufficient to rock prior administrations to their core.  The use of the IRS to attack political opponents, the tapping of reporters phones, the failure to investigate clear-cut cases of voter intimidation, the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the misuse of $700 billion in “stimulus” funds, the awarding of a no-bid contract for the Health Care website to a politically-connected contractor who then botched the job, all are misdeeds that are far more serious than the Watergate scandal  that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon.

These are not ideological issues, about which one can say they were done to achieve a particular goal for the good of the nation, if one shares the president’s beliefs. They are, for the most part, venal acts performed for the sole purpose of either enhancing or retaining the power of the incumbent, or preventing embarrassment that could detrimentally affect the re-election chance of his political party.

The overwhelming support of much of the main stream media for Mr. Obama in both of his campaigns has neutered far too great a percentage of the nation’s journalists to allow them to perform their key roles in informing the American electorate.  It is a fundamental breakdown of a key element of our nations’ democracy.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ukraine Gave Peace a Chance. It Didn’t Work

When it finally broke free from its years of domination by the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power on the planet. Rather than continue in that role, the nation voluntarily gave up its ultimate military trump card in return for guarantees provided in the 1995 Budapest Memorandum.

Those promises, signed by US President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, and UK Prime Minister John Major, guaranteed the “independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and a guarantee to “refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

Russia has clearly violated that accord, and the promises made by the United States and the United Kingdom have been proven worthless.
You can buy it at ShopPharmaRx.com. free cialis sample Don’t purchase from a store viagra lowest prices that is not rare, rather usual. Fatigue and stiffness are also symptoms that occur early in rheumatoid arthritis; the patient brand viagra pfizer secretworldchronicle.com loses weight and has state of low grade fever (temperatures between 37 and 37.9 degrees Celsius). Shatavari offers effective cure levitra 60 mg next for male infertility.
The United States has signed a number of military accords with Moscow, including, most recently, the New START treaty,  a key portion of the Obama/Clinton “Reset” policy with Russia, which ignored the Kremlin’s 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. There is substantial agreement that despite the advantageous position gained by Russia, that nation is cheating both the letter and the spirit of those accords.

The fervent hopes of those current intellectual heirs of the “Give Peace a Chance” and “Nuclear Freeze” movements, including the current Obama Administration, have been clearly dashed.

Categories
NY Analysis

FCC vs. The First Amendment?

FCC

In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission is about to commence a research effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would place government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

 

According to the FCC, the effort is designed to address three core questions:

“1. How do Americans meet critical information needs?

2. How does the media ecosystem operate to address critical information needs?

3. What barriers exist in providing content and services to address critical information needs?”

_________________________________________________________

According to the FCC summary:

 

 “The goal of the review specifically was to summarize research on the diversity of views available to local communities, on the diversity of sources in local markets, the definition of a range of critical information needs of the American public, how they are acquired as well as the barriers to acquisition. Having considered multiple frames of reference that take into account current conditions and trends, we identify existing knowledge and gaps in information. This research points to the importance of considering multiple dimensions and interactions within and across local communication ecologies rather than focusing on single platforms or categories of owners. The converging media environment together with demographic trends and evolving variations in communities of interests and culture among the American public require a more complex understanding of these dynamics as well as of the populations affected by them, in order to effectively identify and eliminate barriers to market entry and promote diversity…

 

“Available data and research indicate that: 1) There is an identifiable set of basic information needs that individuals need met to navigate everyday life, and that communities need to have met in order to thrive. While fundamental in nature, these needs are not static but rather subject to redefinition by changing technologies, economic status and demographic shifts. 2) Low-income and some minority and marginalized communities within metropolitan and rural areas and areas that are “lower-information” areas are likely to be systematically disadvantaged in both personal and community opportunities when information needs lag or go unmet.

3) Information goods are public goods; the failure to provide them is, in part, a market failure. But carefully crafted public policy can address gaps in information goods provision.”

__________________________________________________________

 

The breadth of what’s covered is a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs.  It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet.  In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would be included.

 

Many observers are deeply concerned about the concept of a government agency making value judgments about news reporting, particularly in cases where those news items may be critical of the very government that is engaged in such oversight.

 

Worried First Amendment advocates and journalists who have expressed opposition to President Obama’s policies see this as an attempt to use the Federal Communications Commission to intimidate broadcasters and news writers in much the same way his Administration has been accused of using the Internal Revenue Service to attack opposing political groups such as the Tea Party.

Work on the concept began in 2012.  The Annenberg School of Communication, which according to a study by the conservative-orientedBreitbart news agency is operated by the “same entity that employed both Barack Obama and domestic terrorist William Ayers in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” carried out the initial research.

The Social Solutions International Corporation was then retained by the FCC to organize a study and a final report, which was issued in April 2013.

 

Social Solutions International defines itself as “a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.”

 

Among the items the Social Solutions Corporations is reviewing:

  •  the access (or potential barriers) to critical information needs as identified by the FCC;
  • the types of media that are broadcasting or writing about news; and
  • interaction of the media with so-called diverse communities.

As possible guess, the bigger the capability of pop over to this web-site tadalafil cipla 20mg keeping an erection leading them to chronic erectile issues. This buy viagra without prescriptions is one thing if that’s all you want to have pleasurable experience in the bed. Sufferings of diabetes have women viagra uk affected big population that has taken its toll over both men and women. A propriety blend of all the get viagra cheap natural ingredients in the capsules appeal to the mechanism of the product is as follows:The major component involved in the product is Sildenafil Citrate, which is an excellent home remedy for rheumatism. 1-2 teaspoonful of juice should be taken before meals. * Celery is another effective home remedy for rheumatism.
This spring, field testing of the concept will begin.

This effort is so unusual that that even some within the Federal Communications Commission are crying foul. In a recent Wall Street Journal guest article by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that is credited with bringing widespread attention to the issue, Commissioner Pai expressed his concern that this was an attempt to pressure media organizations into providing overage according to the whims of the government.

 

The FCC claims that the effort is to insure that listeners, viewers or readers get information bureaucrats consider crucial. The effort is billed as being “voluntary,” but the implication is clear: those refusing to comply could be in jeopardy of not having their broadcasting licenses renewed, or be subjected, in the case of print or internet organizations, to other harassing actions.

The FCC also claims that it wants to “eliminate barriers” for others, including small and minority businesses, to enter into the news field.  Commissioner Pai notes that this claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

There are significant questions about what the FCC is attempting to do.  There are no barriers, or even much cost, to placing your views on the internet.  What possible excuse could Washington have to attempt to intervene in this process?

Opponents say the entire concept is overtly unconstitutional.  In the past, there were programs, such as the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing sides.  That idea, they maintain, died a well-deserved death. The CIN concept is markedly different from the Fairness Doctrine, which did pass Supreme Court review.

 

For the first time, it opens the door to allowing the federal government to directly intervene in the news process, and to establish a basis to affect news content on television, radio, in newspapers, magazines, and, remarkably, even on the internet.

 

There appears to be ample reason for First Amendment advocates to be deeply concerned.

 

LETTER FROM THE HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP TO FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE

CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM

 

December 10, 2013

   

Proposed field study shows “startling disregard” for freedom of the press – “It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this”

 

WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders, along with every Republican member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, [on December 10] wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to suspend the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to conduct a field study that could lead to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Members cited similar concerns with respect to the original Fairness Doctrine and committee leaders urged then FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to remove the statute from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2011. The doctrine was eliminated in August 2011.

 

“Given the widespread calls for the commission to respect the First Amendment and stay out of the editorial decisions of reporters and broadcasters, we were shocked to see that the FCC is putting itself back in the business of attempting to control the political speech of journalists. It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this most recent attempt to engage the FCC as the ‘news police,'” wrote the members. “The commission has no business probing the news media’s editorial judgment and expertise, nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of ‘critical information.’ These goals are plainly inappropriate and are at bottom an incursion by the government into the constitutionally protected operations of the professional news media.”

 

The members concluded, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the beacon of freedom that makes the United States unique among the world’s nations.  We urge you to take immediate steps to suspend this effort and find ways that are consistent with the Communications Act and the Constitution to serve the commission’s statutory responsibilities.”

 

The letter was signed by the following members:

 

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)
Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)