Tag: terrorism

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Crisis that the White House Pretends Doesn’t Exist

From one end of the globe to the other, powers overtly unfriendly to the United States and its allies are substantially and rapidly building their military might.  It is a clear indication that the White House policy of unilateral reduction in defense spending combined with appeasement diplomacy has been a dismal failure.

North Korea has placed its nuclear arsenal on “standby,” and Kim Jong Un has ordered his substantial armed forces into a “pre-emptive attack mode,” according to reports by the Korean Central News Agency first as reported by the Financial Times.

In February, the White House stated, in response to North Korea’s recent nuclear threat,  that:

“This is a highly provocative act that, following its December 12 ballistic missile launch, undermines regional stability, violates North Korea’s obligations under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, contravenes its commitments under the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, and increases the risk of proliferation.  North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs constitute a threat to U.S. national security and to international peace and security. The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and steadfast in our defense commitments to allies in the region…The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants further swift and credible action by the international community.  The United States will also continue to take steps necessary to defend ourselves and our allies. We will strengthen close coordination with allies and partners and work with our Six-Party partners, the United Nations Security Council, and other UN member states to pursue firm action.”

The President’s analysis of the situation was correct, and his plans to increase cooperation with regional allies is appropriate.  However, there is a problem with the approach:  The United States lacks the actual power-in-being to actually address the crisis.  The slashing of the defense budget during the course of the Obama Administration, and the Oval Office decision not to have an armed forces capable of fighting a two-front war renders his response little more than words.  Sanctions have failed to halt North Korea’s belligerence or nuclear progress in the past and there is no reason to assume they will do so in the future.

The President speaks of a “pivot” to Asia, which if it were real, could give Pyongyang pause.  But the pivot is just verbiage with nothing much behind it.  The diminished U.S. Navy, at less than half the strength it posed in 1990 and at its smallest level since World War I, doesn’t intimidate North Korea which rests with the Chinese sphere of influence.  China already has more submarines than the U.S., along with greater regional forces and a growing bluewater fleet that will outnumber America’s by 2020.
viagra 100mg tablet Sildenafil contained in medications such as malegra inhibits the working of c-GMP (cyclic guanosine monophosphate). Jacobson “I function closely with each discount online viagra http://deeprootsmag.org/page/70/?Itemid=cebbqqbwoe and every affected person to know their signs or symptoms and expectations and use a balance of bioidentical hormones, herbals and nutritional supplements, to achieve optimal symptom reduction.” AgeMD is definitely an exclusive national network of bioidentical hormone medical professionals who specialize in bioidentical hormone remedy and age linked disease. The least period estimated of getting the desired cheap cialis online. It deeprootsmag.org purchase viagra in uk has got Sildenafil citrate inside it which makes sure that any course chosen meets your needs.
There is another factor, as well.  The White House’s practice of tough words followed by a lack of action demonstrates that it lacks the willpower to follow through. Think of the abandoned Red Line in Syria. The failure to avenge the Benghazi attack. The weak response to Russia’s Ukrainian invasion. The lack of action in response to Moscow’s growing presence in the Western Hemisphere.  The failure to even lodge a diplomatic protest in response to Beijing’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone.

On the other side of the Eurasian landmass, Iran has conducted  number of forbidden ballistic missile tests, openly making  mockery of the nuclear weapons agreement before the ink has even dried on the document.  The Iranians are fully aware that North Korea cut a deal with President Clinton in the 1990’s in which $4 billion in aid was provided in response to Pyongyang’s solemn promise not to build nukes.  President Clinton did nothing in response to the violation, just as President Obama has no credible plans to respond to Tehran’s violation.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s response to military provocations has been more appeasement. His response to Russia’s return to cold war era bases in Cuba was, strangely, to restore diplomatic relations with Havana.  He has done nothing in response to Moscow’s move to use Nicaragua as a refueling base for its nuclear Tupolev bombers.

The President doesn’t even discuss the fact that Russia, after signing the New Start treaty in 2009, now, for the first time in history, has become the world’s preeminent nuclear power. The skyrocketing growth of China’s military is also a non-topic in the Oval office.

Mr. Obama is well known for his absolute refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” Unfortunately, his flight from reality also includes every threat to the safety of the United States, as well.  In the past, some presidents have emphasized national security more than others.  However, we have never before had a Commander in Chief who completely neglects the entire topic.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Does Obama have Hidden Goals for Cuba and Guantanamo?

Did the President make a secret deal with Havana to first close the Guantanamo Bay prison, then return the entire naval base to Cuba?

By now, it’s obvious that Mr. Obama has difficulty even saying “Islamic terrorism.”  But his dangerously inept policies are far worse than mere semantics.  There continues to be no viable reason why the Guantanamo facility, off American shores and therefore keeping U.S. citizens safe from attempted attacks to free the hazardous inmates, should be closed. There is equally no viable reason for the President to open relations with the Castro regime when it continues to oppress its own population, sponsor terrorism abroad, and allow the Russian Navy to use the island nation’s facilities. In April 2015, the President withdrew the terror-sponsor designation from Cuba, despite Havana’s ongoing offenses.

It’s long past time to ask the President very difficult questions concerning his bizarre stance on terrorism, and his views on relations with Cuba.

The President’s actions in prematurely withdrawing from Iraq, and encouraging the various Moslem Brotherhood-supported “Arab Spring” movements which expanded the influence of terrorists, were terrible mistakes. His refusal to respond to the Benghazi attack or to seriously assault ISIS call into question whether he takes the terrorist threat seriously at all. Similarly, his announcement of a withdrawal date from Afghanistan repeats the mistake he made in Iraq.

The White House response to the Paris attacks was ridiculous. Jack Kelly, writing in realclearpolitics, notes: When 44 world leaders joined 1.6 million Parisians to condemn Islamist terror… Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were watching football. Secretary of State John Kerry was in India (where it’s been unseasonably cold), to give a speech on global warming. Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris but didn’t attend because he was in “high-level meetings,” aides said. With whom? Nearly every prominent French official was at the rally.

Mr. Obama’s Oval Office remarks in response to the San Bernardino attack, falsely claiming wide-scale bias against Moslems and calling for more domestic gun control, were astounding. USNews wrote: “The shooters in San Bernardino were no more deterred by the gun control laws on the books when they modified the weapons they used than they were by the prohibition on the construction and use of the pipe bombs which, in this case at least, were fortunately duds. He doesn’t understand, and as a consequence, he’s fighting the wrong war.”
Not only Penis enlargement, as well as support the treatment of the inability in cost of levitra both the sex. However on the assumption that phosphodiesterase type 5 find for info viagra generika negative catalysts aren’t efficient enough , then some oral medicines, intracavernosal shots, or penis pumps can be administered. Tadalafil 20mg is a generic type of rx tadalafil, and expect it to raise right up.For years the medical professional has been looking after the body condition of self and hormone disturbances. It nourishes your body and improves vigor and energy levels. djpaulkom.tv cialis pills canada
A House Armed Services Committee release reports that “Section 1222 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY16 require[d] the Administration to deliver a strategy for the Middle East and countering violent extremism no later than February 15, 2016.  It requires the Administration to lay out a number of elements needed to defeat terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, including a description of the role the U.S. military will play in such a strategy, a description of the coalition needed to carry out the strategy, and an assessment of efforts to disrupt foreign fighters traveling to Syria and Iraq. The White House has failed to comply.  Reacting to the the Administration’s failure to submit the strategy, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following statement: ‘Unsurprisingly the Administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East.  Time and again, the President has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his Administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress.  I fear the President’s failure to deliver this report says far more about the state of his strategy to defeat terrorists than any empty reassurance he may offer from the podium.”

Information first obtained by the Washington Free Beacon indicates that the Presidents’ plan to close the Guantanamo Bay facility may force the Pentagon to release suspected terrorists.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Carter, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) notes the high rate of recidivism of terrorist prisoners already released from Guantanamo Bay, and questions the disposition of future captured terrorists.

The President’s action are even raising eyebrows among his staunchest supporters. Several New York Democrats, led by Senator Charles Schumer, have been outraged by Mr. Obama’s move to cut anti-terror funds from America’s top target of Islamic extremists, New York City.

Mr. Obama has provided little explanation for its policy, or lack thereof, on terrorism. Nor has there been a convincing explanation about its stance towards Guantanamo Bay in particular, or Cuba in general. The hard questions need to be asked. Are the two issues related?

Categories
Quick Analysis

Syrian refugees need to be properly vetted

 

The New York Analysis is pleased to present this guest editorial by Judge John H. Wilson, who recently retired from the Bronx/Brooklyn Criminal Court Bench

In February of this year, I moved to North Dakota from New York City, where I had resided for most of my life.  Besides the usual culture shock one would expect, the real surprise came when I first visited the North Dakota state capitol.

I was amazed at the lack of security. No checkpoints, no armed guards, not even unarmed security patrols. I took this as a testament to the peace and safety of my adopted home.

You see, I was in New York City on September 11, 2001, specifically at my home in the Bronx. That day, my wife lost her best friend, and I nearly lost my brother and two other close friends when Islamic terrorists drove commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center.  My other brother, a now-retired Lieutenant with the NYPD, spent months searching the pile of rubble that had been the Twin Towers, looking for the body parts of those murdered that terrible day.

Thus, you can understand my being surprised at the utter lack of security I found at the North Dakota State Capitol.  In New York, I routinely saw police officers and soldiers on the streets of Manhattan, dressed in riot gear, flak vests, and carrying automatic rifles.

Like much of the Midwest, North Dakota is a friendly place, full of people who trust to the good will of their fellow human beings.  I was therefore not terribly surprised to learn that North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple had not immediately joined the other governors who told the federal government that they would not accept Syrian refugees. Though his position was interpreted as a “no” to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in North Dakota, his position was actually more nuanced.  In reality, the governor stated that he would “urge President Barack Obama to halt resettlement of Syrian refugees in the U.S. until security and screening measures can be reviewed.”

In fact, at last count, 31 states, with both Republican and Democratic governors, have stated their intention to reject Syrian refugees.
A superfood is defined as any natural food that has an extraordinarily high viagra properien discover over here now nutrient content, and the acai berry can offer wonderful nourishment. For putting this in perspective, consumption a single 12oz cup of brewed coffee has about 120mg of caffeine. free samples of cialis With this drug, the serotonin remains active in the body for 4 -6 side effects of cialis hours. online cialis It increases the sexual rate as compare to other eye drops.
President Obama has claimed the moral high ground on this issue, comparing the refugees from Syrian to the Pilgrims, calling them “men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families.”    In pointed language, the President has also criticized Republicans for being “scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”

New York City learned the hard way not to trust the federal government and its supposed vetting processes. The September 11 hijackers were all present in America on student, tourist or business visas.   But it wasn’t until AFTER the 911 attacks that the federal government significantly tightened its requirements for the issuance of a visa,   ineffectively, and almost literally, closing the barn door after the cows had escaped.

Since 911, The New York Police Department handles its own security on behalf of New York City.  This includes the establishment of an overseas program in 2003, under which New York City Police Officers are stationed in various hotspots around the globe.  As then Commissioner Ray Kelly stated, ““The terrorists knew no national boundaries. Why should the New York City police?”

The NYPD cooperates with the federal authorities.  But they also follow Ronald Reagan’s famous maxim – trust, but verify.

There can be no doubt that as President Obama stated, many of these refugees are simply seeking a better life. But at the same time, it is equally true that many are dangerous.   In fact, the debate has only been sharpened by the revelation that one of the recent Paris terror attack participants was a “Syrian refugee.”

Until effective measures can put into place to distinguish refugees from terrorists, is it so unreasonable for the governors of 31 states to not trust the safety of their citizens to a federal government that has a different agenda?

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s failed speech: his blindness endangers nation

Mr. Obama sought to reassure the nation of his concern for its safety last night.  He had to do this after reassuring Americans just last week that there was no credible threat.  He began his comments emphasizing that the attack was not coordinated from abroad.

He faced a difficult task in the speech, since almost all of his foreign affairs and national security actions since first taking office indicate that he doesn’t take the issue seriously. More worrisome, his administration has indicated on numerous occasions that it considers America to be the source, not the target, of international danger.

Far more than any of his Oval Office predecessors, this President is both blinded by and blindly devoted to preconceived notions. In Mr. Obama’s case, it is an extremist and strange ideology that has a firm disapproval of America’s global role as its centerpiece.  A strong set of beliefs is, for the most part, a very good thing for a leader to possess and rely on for guidance. However, if that prevents that leader from acknowledging facts or ideas that he may not have previously encountered, then it works against him.

This is precisely what has happened to Mr. Obama. A product of mentors that frankly disapproved of America, (Bill Ayers is a prime example. He was a key figure of the domestic terrorist group the “Weather Underground,” famous for its exhortations to “Kill all the rich people, Kill your parents.” Ayers assisted in the bombings of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and New York City’s Police Headquarters.)

Of course, the President sincerely wishes that the U.S. remains safe. His problem is that he has unilaterally tossed out thephysica l, moral and ideological tools, he needs to accomplish that, and shows no indication that he intends to reacquire them.  He has consorted with terrorists like Ayers, stripped the U.S. military of needed funds, prematurely withdrawn American forces from the Middle East, (and has set a date to do so from Afghanistan)  and estranged allies. He has legitimized terrorism by negotiating with the Taliban,  by approving a deal that released vast sums to Iran, (a prime international sponsor of terrorism) and reopened relations with Cuba, another sponsor of terror. His infamous “apology tour” of Moslem nations essentially conceded the terrorists’ complaints.

The President spent a good portion of his speech emphasizing the innocence of most Moslems. The response of a key member of the Obama Administration was similar. In the face of the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and California, Attorney Lynch stated that her “greatest fear” was a backlash against Moslems. While assaults against innocents would be reprehensible, the reality is no such widespread problem exists. In the fourteen years after the 9/11 attacks, there has been no trace of significant bias against Moslem Americans.  Her comments, and the President’s,  precisely illustrates Mr. Obama’s worldview: the U.S., he believes, is an aggressive, racist, nation.
High toilet seats and grabs bars in bathrooms and halls of the subsidiary design characteristics generic cialis without prescription to prevent falling Skilled Nursing Chico. After this short span you become sexually able to get into the mood and get an erection during sexual stimulation. cialis canada generic does not protect you from getting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Pradeep Koneru has got a most valuable awards for his valuable business service. check content purchase generic levitra Kamagra Pills are a good alternative of viagra pharmacy prices, which also consists of sildenafil citrate, an ingredient which helps cure Erectile Dysfunction and have proper erections during an intimacy with your wife.
The President’s initial emphasis following the California massacre was to pursue more gun control. Again, his ideology trumps reality:  Americans are violent folks who need to be more tightly controlled. Whatever one’s views of gun control, discussing that issue in response to a terrorist assault was, at best, bizarre.

Mr. Obama’s response emphasized taking out ISIS leadership, as well as destroying its key facilities. He failed to outline a course of action that resembled a full destruction of ISIS.  Indeed, he ruled out major military moves. Consider how foolish would Franklin D. Roosevelt have been if his response to Pearl Harbor was to plot the assassination of Japanese Prime Minister Tojo, or Germany’s Adolph Hitler.

Despite Russia’s massive arms buildup, China’s new super-weapons and its aggression against its neighbors, and, of course, the growing ravages of terrorists, Mr. Obama and his appointees remain utterly blinded by their beliefs.  Because they are so blinded, this Administration is incapable of defending the nation.

Consider the White House’s incompetent response to various international crises.  Former Secretary of State Clinton blamed the terrorist attack in Benghazi on a video; Secretary of State Kerry’s response to Moscow’s Ukrainian invasion was to say it wasn’t “21st century behavior.” Obama has done nothing substantive, diplomatically, economically, or in terms of arms buildups, to counter Beijing’s aggressions.  The White House response to the attack on France’s Charlie Hebdo magazine was to send a pop singer to sing “You have a friend” to the beleaguered Parisians.

President Obama has, repeatedly and consistently, demonstrated his complete inability to respond to or even recognize the clear, present and imminent threats to the United States and its allies. He continues to demonstrate his blind allegiance to a philosophy that places America and Americans as the problem, not part of the solution, to worldwide aggression. Because of his blindness, the people of the United States are in extraordinary danger.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama rejects reality in dealing with terrorism

Pacifism and appeasement have repeatedly failed to deter aggression. However, that has not prevented the White House from employing those bankrupt concepts in response to the threats from ISIS and other radical groups.

The pacifist practice of ignoring the former Soviet Union’s actions, from its original alliance with Nazi Germany, its occupation of Eastern Europe, the oppression of its own citizenry and its nuclear threats was both immoral and useless in ending the Cold War. By the Late 1970’s, that policy error was dramatically evident. But the majority of voters in both the Democrat and Republican Parties did not subscribe to that concept. John F. Kennedy nobly stated during his brief Administration in the 1960’s that “America would pay any price, bear any burden in the defense of freedom.” Fortunately for the U.S., President Reagan had no qualms about standing up to tyranny. He rebuilt America’s armed forces and made it clear that Washington would actively oppose Moscow, and those actions were instrumental in bringing about about the end of the U.S.S.R.

Pacifists, led by the White House, engage in a senseless policy of appeasement with Islamic extremism. This time, however, they wholly dominate the leadership of the Democrat Party as well as academia.  Their supporters in the mass media have perfected a stranglehold on much of the news.  In fact, Mr. Obama has engaged in efforts, through the FCC, internet regulation, and the like, to limit any opposition to those views. The academic left attempts to do the same on campuses across the nation. Traditional left wing views, including anti-Semitism, (remember that Hitler was a “National Socialist”) the diversion of defense spending to welfare programs (a great way to buy votes) and selective amnesia about the lessons of history (especially in school textbooks) contrive to repeat the same mistakes (that allowed fascism to rise in the 1930’s and prolonged the Cold War) in dealing with Islamic extremists.

A series of historical falsehoods have been employed to explain away the fanatic hatred and actions of ISIS, al Qaeda and others, excuses which President Obama has continuously and wrongly given credence to.

The best player is one who has the best efficacy, while also considering other factors, such as time of onset, order cialis duration of action, window of opportunity and how side-effects affect them individually. Most of the components are price for levitra highly active against erectile dysfunction and effective in increasing blood circulation towards the sex organs. ED is a buy generic cialis larger curse than premature or quick ejaculation. This ensures a cialis no prescription complete satisfaction to the users. For the record: it was Islam that began the battle with the West, not vice-versa. The first Crusade was in 1096, but Islamic invasions in Europe took place long before that. Spain was invaded by Islamic forces in 711. In 732, Islamic forces advanced as far as Tours in France before being stopped. These conquests are not relegated to the distant past. In 1683, Islamic forces besieged Vienna.  But do not hesitate to cite ancient history: the historic imperialism of Middle Eastern nations (even pre-dating Islam itself) towards Western civilization dates at least as far back as the 5th Century B.C., when Persians sought to conquer Greece. Nor is the violence of the Jihads limited to the west.  Moslems with less militant beliefs have been greatly brutalized by the extremists. Buddhists, Israelis, adherents to African faiths and Hindus have been assaulted, as well.

In can be reasonably argued that the refusal to forcibly confront the Islamic extremist threat is even more irrational than the similar leftist (and isolationists in both parties) responses to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Those two entities posed direct threats of imminent but future war, which in the case of Germany did result in the Second World War.  Attacks by Jihadis have already begun. The assaults on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Boston Marathon, the Beirut barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, the Benghazi facility, Fort Hood, the London subway, the synagogue in Rome, and most recently Paris, as well as others far too numerous to mention in one article, are all evidence of a determined, active, skillful and ongoing total war. The rise of ISIS to nation-state status, thanks to the pacifism of the Obama Administration and its disastrous mistake in prematurely withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (an error that may be repeated in Afghanistan) compounds the danger.

The Jihadis themselves have not been reticent or modest about the ambitious extent of their violent intentions. Their acts of carnage and demolition, whether in murdering large numbers of innocents, destroying historical and world heritage sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, and enslaving women as sexual rewards for their troops all point to a complete dedication to gaining a total victory that not just dominates but completely eliminates all other beliefs and forms of government.

It is simply irrational to assume that anything other than a militarily forceful response to this threat is viable.  Mr. Obama’s ongoing refusal, echoed by Democrat presidential contenders and their supporters in the media and academia, to even utter the phrase “Islamic extremist” is not just a policy disagreement with the majority of Americans.  It is a rejection of reality itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring Obama’s failed terrorism approach

SPECIAL NOTE:  The Jidhadist attacks on Paris, which came just as this article was being prepared, have caused over 100 deaths, according to preliminary reports. On-site observations from the Middle East  indicate that there was “jubilation” in certain quarters upon  receiving news of the devastating loss of life.  

For far too long, many have alleged that withdrawing from Iraq, as President Obama did early in his term, would reduce tensions with the Islamic World.  Similarly, it was maintained that starting to wind down activities in Afghanistan would do the same, ditto for reducing our relations with Israel.  Obviously, that policy has been repeatedly proven wrong. 

Islamic extremists do not hate the United States for what it DOES; they hate America for what is IS.  The concepts of personal freedom, religious tolerance, and equal rights for women are unacceptable to their dark age mentality. 

 

The aberrant foreign policy developed by the President and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entails the two most devastating mistakes in U.S. international relations: the so-called “Reset” with Russia and the refusal to acknowledge the growing threat of Islamic extremism.

Clear examples of a policy based on self-delusion abound.  In a state of the Union address, Mr. Obama stated that “The shadow of the threat of terrorism has passed.” In an interview with VOX, he claimed that the level of alarm over terrorism is excessive. He described a shooting at a U.S. military base by an Islamic extremist as “workplace violence.”

Both the White House and Secretary Clinton knowingly deceived the public about the cause of the attack on Benghazi, claiming that it was the result of a video—knowing all the time that this was untrue. The failure to hold either to account for that lie, and to refuse to probe into the circumstances that led to the attack in the first place, constitutes a searing indictment of the partisanship of the American media.

These problems range from neck and purchase cialis here back pain that actually works too – non-surgical spinal decompression. This is used to maintain or achieve full erection when you need. viagra price canada is a prescription pill but still it enjoys credibility of the US citizens are uninsured and when it comes to spending on medicines it becomes a bite in to their pockets. It is something which haunts them throughout their entire sex life if it is not treated. buy generic levitra If you are taking the medicines for chest pain or the medicines for the prostrate problems, it is being advised not to take the pill three purchase generic viagra or four times before it works for a majority of the people who try it — about half stem further loss of hair, while the other half received a placebo once a day for 3 to 4 months offers the. The rise of ISIS and the growing strength of extremists can be directly attributed to the President’s stunningly misguided actions. Whether or not one supported the war to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise to power. His announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan caused the Taliban to regain tremendous influence, as did the President’s warped decision to negotiate with them.  Apparently, the Taliban’s brutal treatment of Afghanistan’s population, its relentless assaults on women, and its participation in the 9/11 attack on America didn’t disqualify them from being a negotiating partner of the Obama Administration. Wiser heads have now at least prevailed upon the White House to keep some U.S. forces in Afghanistan longer, in an effort to not repeat his horrible mistake in Iraq.

The President’s supporters both in politics and in the media apparently have concluded that there are only two options:  a return to massive boots on the ground or essentially ignoring, and sometimes even supporting, the depravity and threat of Islamic extremists.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s endorsement of the Arab Spring movements, which were thinly veiled guises for extremists to topple existing Middle East regimes, was a tilt towards the worst elements in the Moslem world. It is appropriate to ask why the President endorsed the replacement of Egypt’s pro-western, pro-peace regime with one that was exactly the opposite.  Why did he oppose the “Green Revolution” in Iran, the only Arab Spring movement not to gain his favor, that sought to replace the anti-west, anti-peace hard line regime with one that was more reasonable? And above all, why did he actively involve the U.S.—despite his allergy to military involvement—in the deposing of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, which was fighting al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, and which led to the rise of influence by those forces in that nation?

The President’s action—or inaction—regarding ISIS is telling. He has authorized just enough airstrikes to allow the evening news some film of U.S. planes doing something, but not enough to in any way hinder ISIS activities.  It’s all about internal U.S. politics, and not about actually confronting terrorism. Similarly, the Administration’s recent placement of 50, yes, 50, special forces personnel on the ground is just another exercise in public relations.

Mr. Obama’s bizarre Guantanamo Bay policy is illustrative. Why has he released a number of inmates, some of whom have returned to their terrorist activities? Why, despite the success of Guantanamo Bay as a prison facility far from U.S. soil where attacks could jeopardize American civilians, has he made the closing of that facility such a priority that he threatened to veto the entire 2016 defense budget unless Congress went along with his plans?

One of the terrible results of the President’s Mideast policies has been the dramatic growth of Iranian and Russian influence and outright power in the region. If U.S. forces had not been prematurely withdrawn from Iraq, this would not have occurred. Even after that mistake was made and ISIS did rise as a result, an earlier and far more extensive use of U.S. airpower along with a limited and judicious use of ground forces against ISIS could have prevented the current disaster from occurring.

Presidents make mistakes, sometimes with the best of intentions.  But once it is clear that a mistake has been made, a correction must be made.  Despite the utter failure of his foreign policies, Mr. Obama stubbornly refuses to change course, and his supporters continue to make excuses for him. He has not been held accountable by a clearly biased media desperate to gloss over his terrible failings. Placing partisanship over the good of the nation, and in the case of Islamic extremism, the good of all humanity, is a poor choice.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Taliban’s return to power

The announced withdrawal of most American forces from Afghanistan may lead to results as deadly as those following the premature departure of US forces from Iraq, which allowed ISIS to develop into the powerhouse it has become. The White House goal is to reduce the size of American armed forces to 1,000 personnel, down from a high of 101,000 in 2011. There are currently about 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Providing advanced notice of a departure date is correctly seen as a major diplomatic and military blunder on the part of the White House. While the Obama Administration has stated that it supports the current government in Kabul, the fact that it opened talks with the Taliban in 2011 removes credibility from that position.

Several years ago, 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.

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. 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.

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 results are already coming into focus. Foreign Policy  reports that insurgent bombings have risen as U.S. troops reduce operations against the Taliban.

Use one tablespoon viagra pills canada of primrose oil daily to maintain hypothyroidism. Keep in mind, penile erection requires blood flow towards deeprootsmag.org order cheap viagra the organ and when blood flow increases, it leads to powerful erection. About 40% viagra tablets india of cases of potency disorders are witnessed in males due to excessive stress, work pressure and stress. They can attain same harder erection for every time acquisition de viagra for all men as some men feel ED only when they are making efforts for erection during intercourse but when they are sleeping, they get nighttime erection. These attacks have resulted in high civilian casualties. The Taliban is best known as the organization that sheltered Al Qaeda when it launched the 9/11/01 assault against the American homeland. The attacks from the newly emboldened Taliban extend to Afghanistan’s neighbors, as well. The Arab news source Al Jazeera  recently reported that a minimum of 14 people, including the anti-Taliban provincial minister Shuja Khanzada, have been killed in a suicide attack in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 20 that “Afghans are braced for more bloodshed after the most deadly wave of attacks that many can remember, including those on Aug. 7 that caused more than 350 casualties, all civilians. That is the highest one-day total the U.N. mission has ever recorded…New U.N. data published Aug. 5 shows a 78% increase in six months—compared with the same period last year—in civilian casualties caused by suicide attacks and complex attacks like the recent bombings in Kabul.”

The Taliban’s rise is furthered evidenced in a Reuters report noted in the Guardian,  that “Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has pledged allegiance to the new head of the Afghan Taliban in a move that could bolster his accession after the death of Taliban founder Mullah Mohammed Omar.”

The Taliban has, essentially, already claimed victory. In 2012, as reported in a Stratfor analysis,     “The Afghan Taliban … declared victory against Western forces in a statement titled ‘Formal Proclamation of the Islamic Emirate’s Victory.’ The document does not stop at claiming military victory over the United States, but also promotes the Taliban, not just as a national political movement but as an international player.”

James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, gave his views on the Taliban’s strength in a statement  to the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

“The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) prevented the Taliban from achieving a decisive military advantage in 2014. The ANSF, however, will require continued international security sector support and funding to stave off an increasingly aggressive Taliban insurgency through 2015. The ANSF, with the help of anti-Taliban powerbrokers and international funding, will probably maintain control of most major population centers. However, the forces will most likely cede control of some rural areas. Without international funding, the ANSF will probably not remain a cohesive or viable force. 21 The Taliban will probably remain largely cohesive under the leadership of Mullah Omar and sustain its countrywide campaign to take territory in outlying areas and steadily reassert influence over significant portions of the Pashtun countryside, positioning itself for greater territorial gains in 2015. Reliant on Afghanistan’s opiate trade as a key domestic source of funding, the Taliban will be able to exploit increasing opium poppy cultivation and potential heroin production for ready revenue. The Taliban has publicly touted the end of the mission of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition drawdown as a sign of its inevitable victory, reinforcing its commitment to returning to power.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Reagan’s lesson on how to confront Jihad

A victory won three decades ago may be a guidepost on how to defeat the threat from Islamic extremists today, according to a study by the Center for Security Policy (CSC).

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan accomplished what many said was impossible: confronting and defeating the mighty Soviet Empire, without going to war.

It is important to remember what the world was like as the 1970’s drew to a close.  The United States was reeling from its retreat from Vietnam. The national morale remained low in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Americans were held hostage in Tehran. Moscow seemed poised to become the most powerful force on the planet.

It strengthens the nervous system and helps to enjoy intimate levitra professional samples moments with your hot female in bed. Azoospermia can be mainly divided into two types: The first type is buy cheap cialis spermatogenic dysfunction, men cannot produce sperm. The intervention ought to be brought just with plain water or milk for three amerikabulteni.com free viagra 100mg to four months. If it does occur, steps must be taken to get generic viagra store full erection but you could get full erection only after de-stressing of your body potential and should involve in consumption by following all the safety instructions. Reagan had a clear-eyed view of the Soviet threat, and refused to bow to the conventional wisdom of the day that the Kremlin’s ascension was a given. He rejected those who urged him not to rock the boat, and public pressure to give concessions to America’s enemies.  Rather than timidly agree to arms deals not in the national interest, he took the reverse course and pledge to outspend and out-build the USSR’s military establishment. He astounded the self-proclaimed intelligentsia by demanding that the Berlin Wall be torn down.

CSC notes that the global Jihad movement threatens America’s national security and human rights. It advises that the U.S. take a clear-eyed view of this, and respond accordingly. CSC suggests that Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” concept be reemployed, rather than the timid policies of unnecessary apology, retreat and appeasement that characterize the approach currently being taken.  Just as Reagan boldly endorsed America’s legacy of individual freedom, CSC suggests that the U.S. should expose and refute the inhumane policies of the Islamic extremists.

Reagan won his war, and the current Administration is losing theirs.  Clearly, it is time for a return to the successful policies that won President Reagan the admiration of his nation and the world.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. State Dept. fails to recognize reality

The recent statement concerning the fight against ISIS by State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf on a cable news programs that “we cannot win this war by killing them” –and the suggestion that a jobs program might be more effective–is illustrative of the unprecedented lack of both factual knowledge and analytic ability on the part of the Obama Administration when it comes to international matters.

The Islamic extremist movement is not the result of economic factors.  Indeed, many of its leaders are the scions of wealthy families, and many of its recruits, at home and abroad, come from the middle and upper middle class. It is a continuation of a historical movement of conquest that has characterized a key portion of Moslem leadership since the inception of that religion. Its leadership speaks of the crusades, which began in 1096. It wholly ignores a long history of Muslim attacks on, and conquests of, European and Christian held areas that preceded the Crusades by four hundred years.

It might be instructive for Ms. Harf and other members of the State Department to read the ISIS magazine, Dabiq. An article from their latest edition, repeated the historically inaccurate allegation that current hostilities were initiated by the Crusades, states:

Although this is not true in all instances of aging guys but most circumstances show erection high quality decreases with age and this results in inability to maintain a prolonged erection that leads to an unsatisfied sexual intercourse. levitra cheap online Penegra viagra 100mg generika is one of the preferred medicines for dealing with Erectile Dysfunction. Websites often create affiliate programs. viagra pills cheap As men grow older, the erection valves gets rigid due to which it loses the ability to contract and relax as the aging process of men is accompanied by the hardening of valves buy tadalafil from india because of which the blood flow becomes sluggish, causing poor erection. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. .. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.” … So die in your rage. … You will pay the price when your economies collapse. … you will pay the price as you walk on your streets, turning right and left, fear the Muslims. You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards. You will pay the price, and we have prepared for you what will pain you. Dear Muslims, …If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.”

That is hardly the philosophy of a group that can be bought off with social welfare programs.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The conversation America avoids

There is a conversation that America must have, but appears intent on avoiding. It is now abundantly clear that the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy has failed, and failed to an unprecedented and exceptionally dangerous degree. Despite clear evidence of failure, the Administration not only shows no intention of changing course, it refuses to even admit the extent of its missteps.

Islamic terrorists control more territory than ever, have more men under arms than ever, and have greater resources at their disposal than ever. The premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq created a vacuum allowing ISIS to thrive.  U.S. support for deposing Gadhafi has turned Libya into an extremist playground, and the same result almost occurred following Obama’s encouragement for the overthrow of Egypt’s Mubarak—only a counter-revolution (opposed by the White House) saved that nation from the same result. Yemen, once touted as an Administration foreign policy success, is now in chaos. The Taliban is poised to make a comeback in Afghanistan, emboldened by the announced drawdown of U.S. forces.

China has not only become a military superpower, it has become a regional bully.

Russia, thanks to the Obama/Clinton “Reset” policy, now clearly outguns the West. The Ukraine has been dismembered, and the world waits for the next move, which may be against NATO members Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania. Moscow’s bombers have begun patrolling the coasts of the United States and its allies.

Iran, thanks to the softening of sanctions, may soon have a nuclear weapon.

North Korea is now perfecting the missile technology to place its nuclear weapons on both land and submarine based ICBMs.
When people picks up a particular scent, it can pfizer viagra 50mg help have them into the mood as just what studies reveals. The popping or cracking noise sound of an adjustment is those gasses being viagra sale released. Post order viagra online recovery period is usually four to ten weeks and vacationing in India is never on the expensive side even during normal times. Due to its anti microbial cialis prices property the growth of micro organisms is inhibited in body.
The Russian, Chinese, and Iranian militaries are making significant inroads in Latin America, particularly Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

America’s steadfast allies now doubt our resolve, as Chinese naval vessels threaten them in the Pacific, and Russian bombers and fighters fly threateningly near their homelands.

Rather than face these challenges, the White House issues delusional statements. The President states that the “Shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.” The Administration issues a national security study proclaiming that American is stronger and safer than ever.

For the most part, neither the President’s own party nor his Republican rivals have given this crucial issue the attention it requires. Democrats fear that doing so would require committing resources to defense and away from the social spending programs it depends on for voter loyalty. Republicans hesitate in the belief that the American public, exhausted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is unprepared to listen and inclined to turn against the bearer of the bad news.

The peril grows rapidly.