Resistance – USA Gov Policy

For eight years, the Obama Administration ignored Constitutional checks on its power and ran roughshod on those with differing views. The IRS harassment of the Tea Party, Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s consideration of criminally prosecuting those that disagreed with the President’s climate change views, and the unlawful surveillance of an opposition campaign are just a few examples. National security protocols for communications were violated without penalty. Major treaties, including the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal were unconstitutionally adopted without the consent of the Senate. Extraordinary conflicts of interests, including Clinton’s approval of the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to the Russians followed by contributions to her foundation, abounded.

There was little fear of having to legally account for these and other misdeeds because a sure-thing successor waited in the wings. The perpetrators, both elected and appointed, would not be held to account by a friendly successor Administration.

The surprising results of the 2016 Presidential campaign terrified the perpetrators, who were suddenly vulnerable to exposure and prosecution. In all other instances when an administration was replaced by one from a different party or ideology the retired leader and his appointees quietly moved on, and their party looked forward to the next election.

That wouldn’t work for the Obama Administration. The legal exposure was vast and deadly serious. It wasn’t just political embarrassment or job loss that would result. For some, penalties including jail time could be their fate. When Trump won, that left one alternative for those whose lives were on the line: to somehow delegitimize the new government.

Doing so would be a very hard sell, and besides, even if both the President and Vice President were somehow tossed from office, the Speaker of the House, another Republican, would become the new president. The GOP itself had to be delegitimized, so that they would lose the 2018 midterms and a Democrat would be the new speaker. Ginning up false and overblown controversies, including the Russian Collusion and other artificial charges, was the path chosen.

Democrats and their media allies term it a “Resistance,” a much more palatable term than what it really is—an attempt at a coup.
Besides, men who have got tired of trying several medicines but found them fail. http://www.icks.org/html/03_conference.php?seq=25 acheter viagra pfizer It might take a few days of doing this special info cialis 20 mg exercise you can hold each compress of the muscles for few seconds. Shopping is sometimes needed and sometimes could be a good option for you Among the natural ways to treat this, daily basis physical exercise probably the best option. generic viagra pill Wind Energy together with the cheap viagra http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/2017-2.pdf Markets These days Sustainable energy is amongst the most in-demand varieties of strength in the world today as increasing numbers of sectors have become as high paced and as changeable as the fashion industry.
The key wrongdoers eagerly push the concept. Obama tossed aside all precedent and remained active in public affairs. Hillary Clinton touts the idea of Trump being unqualified. The former heads of the FBI and the CIA, as well as their key underlings, many of whom were the most legally vulnerable, desperately worked the talk show and press circuit. A sympathetic media ignores astounding acts, such as former CIA chief John Brennan’s admonition to federal employees to ignore Presidential directives. Some elected officials fail to condemn violent riots and outright talk of assassination by misguided celebrities.

No one is asking what the “Resistance” is resisting. Simply disagreeing with the policies of the elected government is not “resistance;” it’s the consequence of losing at the ballot box.

In the two years since the 2016 election, we have seen, in addition to the antics of partisan current and former members of the FBI, CIA, and the Department of Justice, a former Secretary of State, John Kerry, roam the globe telling allies and adversaries to ignore the current U.S. government, and the radical 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals seek (unsuccessfully) to overturn legitimate presidential power. Coordinated efforts by Democrat-friendly media and entertainment outlets have sought to create a wholly unsubstantiated sense of crisis.

This is not the vigorous policy fights and harsh campaign rhetoric that are the business as usual of politics. They are the desperate measures of those seeking to overturn an election in order to avoid exposure of their wrongdoing and the consequences that would follow.

Illustration: Pixabay

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.