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

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.