Obama’s policies – USA Gov Policy

The effects of presidential policies endure well past the term of the Chief Executive who establishes them. This is particularly true currently, when two of the remaining three contenders to replace the current White House occupant have vowed to continue or even enhance those policies.

Mr. Obama’s actions have raised many serious, unanswered questions that an overwhelmingly supportive media has refrained from asking. Since the November election will, in many ways, be a referendum on his actions, The New York Analysis of Policy and Government urges the President to candidly explain to the American people his goals and his actions in the following crucial areas:

Middle class jobs declined under Mr. Obama’s watch, and the assets of middle class Americans have deteriorated. While the White House contends that unemployment is at a low level, (a statistical point not supported by closer review) the reality is that decent-paying full time jobs with benefits have been replaced with low-paying jobs, many of which are part time and without benefits.
It’s not just the middle class that has suffered. Inner city residents at the lower end of the pay scale have faced dramatic levels of unemployment, as many positions once filled by Americans, especially minorities, are now occupied by illegal immigrants willing to work for even lower wages.
Why has the President ignored existing laws in his policies towards illegal immigration? The Department of Justice has been chastised for intentionally deceiving the Court about the Administration’s blatant disregard for the law in this area.
In the wake of the IRS’s partisan actions, the failure by the Department of Justice to prosecute cases which could embarrass or inconvenience the current executive branch, and other instances of misuse of federal agencies, trust in the federal government is at an extraordinarily low level. Pew Research notes that “Currently, just 19% say they can trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest levels in the past half-century.”The President needs to explain why he has encouraged executive branch agencies, paid for by taxpayers, to be used for partisan purposes.
Jonathon Gruber, architect of Obamacare, has openly admitted to defrauding the American people about key details of the program. Considering that this adjusted one-sixth of the entire American economy, how does the President justify this deception?
Similarly, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes “spearheaded the charge to mislead elected lawmakers and the American people about the Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations that led to the agreement.” Why did the President feel it was permissible to deceive the people? In a similar vein, why did Mr. Obama believe he could confide more in Russian officials than the American people about his plans to limit U.S. missile defenses?
Why does the President tolerate discussions by his attorney general about launching criminal charges against those that disagree with his environmental policies? Similarly, why does the President repeatedly insist that his views on the issue are “settled science,” even though he received a petition from 31,000 scientists disagreeing with him?
Even under the best of all possible outcomes, the Iran deal gives that nation a free hand to develop and deploy nuclear weapons in about a decade. Why did the President agree to this?

This cialis online shop choose here section will tell you how to form good working relationships with your coworkers, how to develop trust and how to make the relationship a two-way street where everyone in the relationship will succeed. Approx shop viagra 60% of ED patients are internet shoppers and order their drug via online. Erection starts viagra pill uk with intimate pleasure. Your confidence would be back and so would be ready to have your happy married life at stake or would you like to quit smoking? A study done on Smoking reveals alarming cheap levitra tablets facts those cigarettes contain 700 chemicals.

Why did the President essentially give Moscow a lead in strategic nuclear weapons in the New Start treaty?
Why did the President unilaterally reduce U.S. forces in Europe shortly before Moscow’s Ukraine invasion?
Why did the President endorse the ouster of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood leader?
Why did the President assist a regime change in Libya that replaced a leader who was anti-ISIS and anti-al-Qaeda with a weak government that has helplessly watched that nation turn into a region where terrorism thrives?
Why did the President mislead the American people about the causes of the Benghazi attack, and why did he refuse to allow American forces to mount a rescue attempt?
Why is the President negotiating with the Taliban, a group so instrumental in the 9/11 attacks?
Why has the President substantially reduced American armed forces at a time when Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are rapidly building theirs up?
Why has the President alienated allies such as the United Kingdom and Israel?
Why is Mr. Obama transferring control of the internet, a largely American invention which has been administered by the U.S. in a manner open to all without censorship, to an international group comprised of members who believe in and have practiced restricting free speech?
Why did the Administration attempt to put federal monitors in newsrooms?

These are only some of the existing questions. The President owes the nation an explanation.

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html