Unanswered Questions About Obama’s Policies

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

Judge Juan Merchan Must Recuse Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump

Judge Juan Merchan Must Recuse Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump By John H. Wilson In April and May of 2023, we discussed several of the weaknesses of the criminal case brought against former President Donald Trump. In particular, we described the legal insufficiency of the indictment, which does not “asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” We also noted that the majority of the charges brought against Trump are most likely time-barred by New York’s Statute of Limitations. https://www.usagovpolicy.com/is-trumps-indictment-beyond-the-statute-of-limitations/ In both articles, we also noted that the Judge assigned to hear the case against the former President, Juan Merchan, had previously donated small sums to several anti-Trump organizations, and was unlikely to dismiss the charges on either of these grounds. According to the New York Post, Merchan “donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, including $15 to President Biden’s campaign and $10 to a group dedicated to ‘resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Federal Election Commission records show Merchan made three small-dollar donations within the span of two days in July 2020 through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred online fundraising platform. The veteran judge contributed $15 earmarked for the ‘Biden for President’ campaign on July 26, 2020, and then the following day made $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans” . Given the small amounts involved, no one seriously argued that Judge Merchan should be removed from the case after having made these contributions, even though “FEC records show that Merchan listed his occupation as ‘judge’ on the donation form, and his employer as the New York State Office of Court Administration.” This is, however, an issue of some seriousness. Under Rule 100.5(A)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, “[n]either a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and (iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include…(h) soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate. (Emphasis added.) This means that despite the modest sums donated by Judge Merchan, he is prohibited from making ANY contribution, in ANY amount, to the Biden campaign, or any other political organization. It’s not as if Judge Merchan wouldn’t be aware of these rules. According to CNN, “Merchan launched his legal career in 1994…as an assistant district attorney in the trial division in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office…[i]n 2006, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg…appointed Merchan to Family Court in the Bronx, and Democratic Gov. David Paterson appointed him to the New York State Court of Claims in 2009, the same year he began serving as an acting New York Supreme Court judge.” With more than 23 years of experience as a judge, Juan Merchan would certainly know he is prohibited from making contributions in any amount to political campaigns and organizations. But he did it anyway. Further, under Rule 100.3(E)(1) “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Making campaign contributions to the current President, and then hearing the case of that President’s opponent in this year’s election would certainly qualify as a reasonable question regarding Merchan’s impartiality. But this is only one basis under which Judge Merchan’s removal from the Trump case is both appropriate and necessary. There is more substantial basis for this matter to be taken away from Judge Merchan. Rule 100.3(E)(1) continues as follows; “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where… (d) the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person…(iii) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” According to the website Living DNA, a First Degree of Relationship is a Parent to a Child, while a Sixth Degree is a second cousin. In between are Grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews and First Cousins. It stands to reason, then, that if Judge Merchan had a cousin, or a nephew, or a grandchild who was known to the Judge, and that person had “an interest that could be substantially affected” by a proceeding over which Judge Merchan was presiding, he would have to legally and ethically recuse himself from the handling of that matter. But what if that person is of the first degree of relationship, that is, a child of the Judge? Meet Loren Merchan, who is, according to the New York Post, “president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser…Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored an eye-popping $20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records…The Senate Majority political action committee, which supports Democratic Senate campaigns, pocketed $73.6 million since it also began firing off fundraising emails following the ex-president’s indictment…The super PAC has done more than $15 million in business with Authentic since 2019, including email fundraising and branding assistance, while Schiff’s Senate campaign paid Authentic more than $10 million for digital advertising and other consulting services the past year, records show.” Let us understand what the New York Post has revealed here. Loren Merchan is the president of an organization that has been paid ten million dollars by the Senate Majority PAC, which has earned the money to pay Loren’s company by fundraising that is, at least, […]

Our Latest Television Program

Weak Foreign Policy’s Dangers

Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL and Republican Congressional Candidate for Virginia’s 7th district, describes how the Biden administration’s weak leadership has promoted instability and conflict around the world. Another fascination conversation follows as author Jason Morgan describes the perilous situation in the Indo-Pacific. If your missed the program on your local TV station, watch it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIo2JVHjF6_hPQzr6CVrMegRF_7YxSnp/view?ts=66295e0a