Hillary-wary Dems – Yes, She is Toxic

Editor’s Note – Are some Democrats becoming weary and wary of Hillary Clinton? We sure are, and so should the rest of America!

It is puzzling how so many people still back Hillary Clinton, completely ignoring the massive amount of baggage she has in tow. The baggage of course includes Benghazi, and having absolutely zero success in any of her previous incarnations and positions.

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton pounds her fists while testifying on the Benghazi attacks during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in WashingtonHillary Clinton has reportedly pressured the Democratic leadership to fill all five seats available on the Select Committee on Benghazi. Why, because she needs cover, she needs an Elijah Cummings to conduct circus acts to obfuscate the outcome. Why, because she is up to her eyeballs in it, and is responsible in part, or whole, for the debacle and horror that came before, during, and after that second 9/11.

We have asked ourselves many times if there are any statesmen on the left anymore – but alas, we knew of none. But wait, maybe some are getting wary of her at least. Having to defend her and Obama incessantly seems to be bringing some to that breaking point. Maybe they see that we want people who are Americans first, not the typical politician we so often now.

Even the most tried and true liberal must at some point get very tired of suspending all disbelief to stay in lock step with the leadership to get her elected and to save Obama.

If it were not for the mass ignorance in the populace to rely upon, the Democrats would have long ago jettisoned her for someone who was a bit more palatable or certainly someone with fewer ghosts hanging over their heads.

Wake up America; Hillary Clinton is toxic, and you need to make sure all know. We cannot afford another ‘cult-of-personality’ candidate for anything and survive as the Representative Republic we were created to be. We need true American women warriors – we need “Women at War…for America!”

The ‘Wary of Hillary’ Democrats

By Maggie Haberman – Politico

Everyone knows about the “Ready for Hillary” Democrats — the rapidly proliferating parade of elected officials and activists getting behind Hillary Clinton’s increasingly likely 2016 presidential campaign.

But there’s also a smaller but increasingly vocal group making its presence felt lately — call these Democrats the “Wary of Hillary” Democrats. They’re not outwardly opposing a Clinton candidacy. But they are anxious about the spectacle of a Clinton juggernaut, after seeing what happened when she ran a campaign of inevitability last time.

Some feel a competitive primary, regardless of the outcome, is good for the party. Others say Clinton, who’s been out of electoral politics for five years, needs to be tested. And some Democrats are merely concerned that the party won’t have an open airing of views on economic policy.Hillary-Clinton-2016

The reservations, expressed mostly in private company, have been given voice in recent days by some of the party’s most prominent governors.

“She is an enormously capable candidate and leader, but I do worry about the inevitability, because I think it’s off-putting to the average voter,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a longtime Obama ally, told CNN earlier this month. “And I think that was an element of her campaign the last time. As an enthusiastic Democrat, I just hope that the people around her pay attention to that this time around.”

The public commentary about the risks of Clinton as fait accompli seems less a harbinger of a messy primary fight than an effort to nudge Clinton to the left. There’s no apparent candidate with President Barack Obama’s political skill to catch Clinton by surprise this time. But the Democratic base doesn’t want Clinton to get a free pass, lest she give short shrift to the progressive agenda and tack to the center before the primary campaign is even fully underway.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who was endorsed by Bill Clinton in his 2010 gubernatorial race but who challenged him for the presidency in 1992, also praised Clinton but suggested she needs to act with care in the coming months.

“She’s got the capacity,” he told ABC News. “But like any front-runner, she has to be cautious and wise in how she proceeds forward.”

Patrick recently told POLITICO “maybe” when asked if he would consider a national run, although not necessarily in 2016. Obama said in March that Patrick, one of his close supporters, shouldn’t rule out 2016. Brown, who sought the presidency three times in the past, had been seen as leaving his options open for 2016, but he told reporters in January that running this cycle is “not in the cards. Unfortunately.”

Whatever concerns Patrick and Brown have about Clinton, said former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, they’re not something she is bringing on herself.

“Secretary Clinton’s inevitability, or what appears to be inevitability, is something that is happening [on its own],” Strickland, a Clinton supporter, said in an interview. “So what to do about it? You accept it for what it is — a grass-roots movement.

“I don’t know that there’s a lesson to be learned from what happened several years ago. The circumstances were very different then,” he added.

The comments by Patrick and Brown came on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remarking to NBC News’ Chuck Todd earlier this month that the bloody primary fight between Clinton and Obama six years ago was “an extremely healthy process.

“I think it was wonderful. People learned about these two people” things that they didn’t know before, he added.

Reid prefaced that by noting that “everybody knows I love the Clintons … including Chelsea.” (Read more here at Politico.)

"Women at War for America" – Conservative Women's Movement

PRESS RELEASE – MAY 19, 2014

General Vallely Announces New Movement:  “Women at War for America”

LANSING, MI (May 17, 2014)- General Paul  Vallely, US Army, ret., announced the birth of an extraordinary movement, “Women at War for America,” at the MI-CPAC Freedom Summit held at the Ramada Hotel and Conference Center in Lansing, MI.

The Freedom Summit featured National and internationally recognized conservatives, such as Trevor Loudon and Prof. Harry Veryser.WomanatWarForAmerica

Gen. Vallely, who served in the Vietnam War and Deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command, retired in 1993, is currently the Chairman of Stand Up America US and a member of the citizen’s Commission on Benghazi.

Gen. Vallely shared his insights regarding US involvement in the Middle East, and provided unique perspective on Egypt, and its rejection of Mohammed Morsi, as the featured luncheon speaker.

After his address, he remarked how invigorated he became after conservative activist, Arleen Allen introduced him to likeminded women, including Lila Bradley, Karen Faett and Sharon Lollio, all of whom described their efforts to attract other women to conservatism by demonstrating how less government regulation and lower taxes create opportunities for women and their families.

“The ‘War on Women’ is the Left and the liberal media’s latest attempt to create an ‘us v. them’ mentality among voters.

PVLansingMichiganWhen speaking to these conservative women today, I recognized that they possessed the passion and conviction to combat this insidious attempt to divide.  It came to me then.

These women would be an army, and their weapon would be truth.

There is no war on these women.  Instead, they would be waging the war as the Women at War…for America!”  declared Gen.  Vallely.

Cleta Mitchell, a high powered Washington D.C. attorney currently representing several Tea Party and conservative organizations targeted by the IRS, and fellow Freedom Summit guest speaker, upon hearing of the movement, remarked, “The men in Washington will tell you how to get something done.  A woman will get it done.”

“What a privilege and honor it is to have Gen. Vallely bestow this level of confidence in us, and designate today as the beginning of a movement which will sweep the country,” said Karen Faett, President, 21st Century Women’s Alliance of Michigan, who recently appeared on Fox 2 Let It Rip Weekend dispelling the War on Women, calling it a fabrication by those seeking political gain.

The first “Platoon” met with Gen. Vallely in Lansing, exchanging ideas about how to carry the bold message that being united as Americans and having less government regulation benefits women and their families.

Its mission is to encourage women to embrace conservative principles, and to help disseminate the truth in order to protect future generations from the dismantling of our Constitution.

To join the movement and form a “Platoon,” visit our Facebook Page, “Women at War for America.”

Contact

Karen Faett

kmfsheltie@comcast.net

McCarthy – The Internal Repression Service

The revenue agency has become a tool for suppressing speech.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review

Andy McCarthy
Andy C. McCarthy

Through months of Obama administration stonewalling, the redoubtable Judicial Watch perseveres in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, finally uncovering bombshell documents that have eluded several congressional investigations.

For the second time in a matter of days, we find that standing oversight committees with competing subject-matter jurisdictions and limited attention spans are incapable of the grand-jury-style probe needed to get to the bottom of administration lawlessness.

For that, in the absence of a scrupulous special prosecutor reasonably independent from the Obama Justice Department (not gonna happen), it becomes clear that a select committee will be necessary.

Just two weeks ago, the scandal involved the cover-up of administration duplicity regarding the Benghazi massacre. (See my related article in the new edition of National Review.) Now, it is the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service.

For a year, the administration and IRS headquarters in Gomorrah by the Potomac have attempted to run an implausible con-job:

“The harassment of organizations opposed to Obama’s policies by an executive-branch agency had nothing to do with the Obama administration — it was just a rogue operation by an IRS office in Cincinnati which, though regrettably overzealous, was apolitical, non-ideological, and without “even a smidgen of corruption.”

The story had about as much credibility as the administration’s “blame the video” script that Susan Rice dutifully performed on the post-Benghazi Sunday shows, or the Justice Department’s 2011 assurance to Congress that its agents would never knowingly allow the transfer of a couple of thousand guns to criminal gangs in Mexico. The “Cincinnati did it” yarn has been unraveling since it was first spun by IRS honcho Lois Lerner and, soon afterwards, by President Obama himself. The lie has now been exploded by e-mails clawed from the IRS by Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act suit.irs-lied-to-congress-820x48

These include one from a top IRS lawyer in Washington succinctly explaining in July 2010 that “EOT [i.e., the revenue agency’s “Exempt Organization Technical unit” in Washington] is working Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy.” “Tea party applications” were requests by conservative groups to be granted tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. By selectively setting aside their applications, delaying the conferral of tax-exempt status to which the law entitled them, and putting them through inquisitions that violated their constitutional rights to political speech and association, IRS headquarters prevented them from raising funds and organizing as an effective opposition.

The e-mails elucidate that Cincinnati’s strings were being pulled in Washington: “We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent [in Cincinnati] to use as examples in the development of their cases.” “Tea party applications,” IRS headquarters elaborates, have been isolated as “the subject of an SCR” — meaning “sensitive case report.” To “resolve” such cases would require “coordination with Rob” — a reference, Judicial Watch contends, to Rob Choi, who was then a high-ranking IRS official in Washington.

It is no more conceivable that IRS headquarters was off on its own anti–Tea Party witch-hunt than that the subordinate Cincinnati office was. The fuse, it must be recalled, was lit by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, affirming the First Amendment’s prohibition against government restrictions of political speech by corporations. The ruling enraged the Left and prompted the president’s tongue-lashing of the stunned justices during the 2010 State of the Union address.

At this point, it remains unclear which, if any, administration officials were — to borrow the delicate term — “coordinating” with the IRS. It is manifest, though, that in the atmosphere charged by Obama’s impertinence, congressional Democrats felt empowered to push the IRS to undermine free political speech through administrative intimidation. Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit reveals correspondence in which Senator Carl Levin, the powerful Michigan Democrat, agitates for IRS action against several conservative groups. In accommodating responses, then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven Miller takes pains to assure him that flexible regulations enable the revenue agency to design “individualized questions and requests” for targeted Section 501(c)(4) applicants.

2014-05-15-b672324fAfter a damning Treasury inspector-general report last year, even the IRS concedes that its singling out of conservative groups and obnoxiously intrusive demands for information were “inappropriate.” In truth, they were blatantly unconstitutional. As is always the case in Washington scandals, the question of whether crimes were committed arises — and now, the companion question of whether lawmakers who encouraged executive lawlessness are guilty of crimes.

For the time being, the lawsuits brought by conservative organizations victimized by the IRS have alleged only civil wrongs: principally, the deprivation of their constitutional rights to free speech and association, and of their statutory right to tax-exempt status. Nevertheless, these claims could trigger criminal jeopardy. For example, federal law (specifically, Section 242 of the penal code) makes it a crime for a government official to “willfully subject[] any person . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Without a competent, impartial investigation, it will be tough to amass sufficient evidence to prove a willful violation of law. The officials implicated would surely claim — however dubiously — that they were just trying to enforce ambiguous regulations. Moreover, even if executive-branch officials could be proved criminally culpable, any prosecution of members of Congress would face a severe roadblock: the broad constitutional immunity lawmakers enjoy whenever arguably engaged in “legislative acts.” Remember Representative William Jefferson, whose crass acceptance of bribes did not stop a federal appeals court from invalidating an FBI search of his Capitol Hill office.

In any event, as I argued here last weekend, to focus on criminal or civil liability is to miss the point. The importance of government officials lies in the public trust reposed in them and the awesome power it entails. When they demonstrate themselves to be unworthy of that trust, the imperative is to take the power away.

The IRS has become a vehicle of repression — one that Democrats have further empowered through Obamacare. Its budget should be slashed, and we should figure out better ways to raise revenue. In addition, government officials have engaged in conduct that, at a minimum, grossly disregarded the constitutional rights our government exists to safeguard. Whether such serious misbehavior is attributable to incompetence or corruption, the officials who engaged in it should be defrocked. Most of us couldn’t care less whether they are sent to jail or successfully sued, but we should all insist that they no longer wield power.LernerLewMiller

The most ominous development in the IRS scandal is the confederation of executive and congressional authority in opposition to our fundamental rights. The accumulation of all government powers in the same hands, Madison warned, “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In a free society, powers must be separated. The Framers thus gave us a Constitution that heeded the wisdom of Montesquieu:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

The IRS scandal presents a textbook case of tyrannical execution. It is fraught with peril. We are dealing not merely with a single president, who presumes to rule by decree; nor just with his congressional partisans, who presume to pull the executive bureaucracy’s coercive levers. Enormous power is cumulating in an ideological movement that is hostile to free expression, one that views its political opposition not as fellow citizens with a different point of view but as enemies to be silenced and destroyed.

Frightening times.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His next book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, will be released by Encounter Books on June 3.

EDITOR’S NOTE: An error in this column as it originally appeared has been corrected, as explained here.

Pentagon Police Security Systems Fail

Editor’s Note – We are in deep trouble electronically and our national security is at stake. This we have seen and heard many times, but when the Pentagon security systems fail ‘catastrophically’, with repairs expected to be finished by January 2015, it is time to find a new level of worry.

The cause is unknown to date but we ask, why did it take so long for this to be released to the public? The event began on January 3rd, here we are in May.

Pentagon Police Agency Hit by ‘Catastrophic’ Network Outage

By Bob Brewin – NextGov.com

The agency that manages the Pentagon Police Department and also runs networks and computers used the by the  Office of the Secretary of Defense experienced a “catastrophic network technological outage” on Jan. 3, and it could take until January 2015 to complete the repairs, an obscure document on the Federal Business Opportunities website revealed.Force Protection Agency

That document, posted on May 2, disclosed that the outage experienced by the Pentagon Life Safety System Network and Life Safety Backbone left the Pentagon Force Protection Agency “without access to the mission-critical systems needed to properly safeguard personnel and facilities, rendering the agency blind across the national capital region.”

The Force Protection Agency provides security and services to 100 military buildings in Washington, Maryland and Virginia.

The agency estimated it would take six to 12 months to “effect repairs and to upgrade the network core to mitigate future outage risks.” Repairs include recovery of data after the catastrophic network technological outage and upgrade and replacement of switches and routers.

sadfdsafaSRA International Inc. won a $56 million contract for the Life Safety System Network in 2008 that expired on April 30.

The Force Protection Agency falls under the Washington Headquarters Service, which extended the SRA contract through Oct. 31, with a value of $7.3 million, and a four month option through Feb. 28, 2015, with a total value of $11.4 million.

The sole source contract extension with SRA called for refreshed hardware and software for the Life System Safety Network, a new network design that minimizes single point failure, including dual homing, which reduces the risk of failure.

As the incumbent on Life Safety System Network contract, “SRA is the only known vendor who has expert security-cleared personnel that can immediately accomplish this urgent upgrade given their existing knowledge of the specific LSB technical and architectural challenges, and in-depth knowledge of the existing infrastructure to include the known and potential failure points of an extremely complex environment,” the Washington Headquarters Service said.

The Pentagon has not yet responded to a query submitted Sunday on the general cause of the outage nor to a query earlier Tuesday morning on whether or not it was caused by a hacker.

US Undermined Egyptian Counter-Terrorism War on MB

Editor’s Note – The author of the following article, Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security. She is also a partner with Stand Up America US and recently planned and implemented the recent trip MG Vallely and a delegation of other national security experts and journalists made to meet with senior officials in Cairo recently.

In addition to this piece, a new release came out today about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and what candidate al-Sisi believes should happen:

Egyptian presidential favourite and former army chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has vowed that the ousted Muslim Brotherhood group “will not exist” should he win. In his first interview with Egyptian TV, he added that two assassination plots against him had been uncovered.

Mr Sisi removed Egypt’s first democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi from power last July. He is widely expected to win the presidential election on 26-27 May. (Read more here at the BBC.)

It is about time we in America learned what the Egyptians already know about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Please read on:

Egypt’s Counter-Terrorism War Undermined by US Insistence on Muslim Brotherhood

By Tera Dahl – Breitbart

On a recent trip to Egypt with a delegation of national security experts and journalists, we had the opportunity to meet with senior-level Egyptian security officials, as well as several members of the country’s various religious and civil society movements. The message being disseminated in the Western press about Egypt is contrary to the reality on the ground.

A recent Los Angeles Times article repeats the accusation that Egypt’s response to terrorism is in fact the reason Egypt is in such trouble. This narrative has become entrenched in some circles of the US foreign policy establishment. To quote directly from the article, “…some U.S. officials warn that the Egyptian actions may alienate civilians and spur anti-American sentiment.”egypt_morsi_obama_protest_AP

The inference is that the al-Qaeda-affiliated political movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), ousted from government, continues to be the most important “civilian” political entity in the Arab world’s most populous nation and that the MB is a legitimate political actor.

This is despite the Brotherhood being removed as a result of what may have been the largest popular democratic revolt in history, with tens of millions of anti-Brotherhood protesters flooding the streets in the summer of 2013 in rejection of the Brotherhood’s theocratic regime.

Having spent an extensive amount of time in Egypt since the removal of President Morsi last June, I can say with confidence that “anti-American sentiment” is currently at a dangerously high level, but not for the reasons many in the press cite.  The animosity stems from America’s policies of not backing the Egyptian people and their war on terrorism.

On our recent trip, members of Egypt’s civil society, that very backbone which any future democratic polity must be built on, asked us why Washington is supporting terrorism and not supporting the Egyptian people and military in their fight against terrorism. Many everyday Egyptians simply don’t understand why the U.S. cannot perceive the political reality on the ground. Egyptians are facing a counterinsurgency war in their very backyard – on Friday, an Egyptian soldier was killed by a suicide bomber in the Sinai and a policeman was killed and four more wounded by an explosion in Cairo.

In the same Los Angeles Times article, an unnamed U.S. counter-terrorism official was quoted as saying, “We fear that the Egyptian government’s heavy-handed tactics may be fueling recruitment for ABM [Ansar Bayt al Maqdis] or other extremist groups in the region.” Would it have been better for the Egyptian people to have allowed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to stay in power and embrace the fact that they were turning Egypt into a terrorist state?

POTUS-Cairo-Speech-2009-copyOne of President Morsi’s first official acts was to release the brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, from prison and put him in charge of relations with the Sinai, the very area where foreign fighters have been waging a war against the people of Egypt. This same individual was later responsible for organizing the violent protest at the American Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012.

There is a clear campaign in the Western media and in many Western think-tanks and policy organizations to turn the Egyptian military into the enemy and the terrorist organization of the Muslim Brotherhood into the innocent, democracy-loving victims. This narrative is deceitful and needs to be countered. The Egyptian military is America’s ally and has been since 1973, and the Muslim Brotherhood is America’s enemy. The Egyptian military is fighting against terrorism; America fights against terrorism. America and Egypt are fighting the same enemy with the same ideology that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, thousands of Americans in Iraq, and is still killing our troops in Afghanistan today.

An institutional double-standard is evident when comparing Ukraine and Egypt. Both nations faced popular political change that aligned with the U.S.’s national interest against common foes. Congress rallied to the side of the Western-leaning Ukrainian government but continues to balk at supporting Egypt. Why?

Mohammed Morsi and his allies were turning Egypt into a failed, terrorist state. This included turning the Sinai into a safe haven for HAMAS and other militants, or as we were told in Cairo, turning the Sinai into an “Islamist Ivy League.” Morsi gave Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a red carpet welcome in Cairo and went out of his way to engage with Iran in diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979.

Morsi granted himself far-reaching powers, issuing constitutional amendments that he had no authority to assume, placing himself above any judicial oversight. Then he released hundreds of HAMAS prisoners and other terrorists, to include Zawahiri’s brother. egypt-morsi

Now, after the ouster demanded by the Egyptian people, Morsi is being prosecuted for the deaths of protesters outside of Ittihadiya palace in December 2012, where at least ten people died in clashes, as well as his escape from Wadi el-Natroun prison and his clandestine relationship while in power with HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

What sense does it make to not support Egypt – and therefore push them towards Russia and risk losing our strongest ally in the Arab world and assist Russia in gaining a new strategic ally?

A message that was repeated quite often to us was that the United States’ policies (or absence thereof) are creating anarchy and instability in the region. To quote our hosts, Libya and Syria are turning into a new Afghanistan. “You left Libyans, you washed your hands of Libya,” they say. And we have.

There are reports of training camps in Libya run by the “Free Egyptian Army” seeking to wage war against the Egyptian security forces. The Egyptian military may have no other choice but to use military force in Libya to control their borders and protect their country. President Obama’s war in Libya has created an Al Qaeda safe haven which will have dire consequences for the region and also the United States.

The United States can no longer turn a blind eye to the chaos and anarchy in Libya. Militants are killing Libyan security forces and civilians every day in Libya, and instead of the Obama Administration taking any action to clean up the mess they created, they have instead embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorists, in Libya.”

Morsi worked to change the identity of Egypt into an intolerant, theocratic state, not unlike Iran. The Egyptian people knew that in order to save their country, they had to do something and could not wait three more years for elections that had already been dominated by a political movement with no respect for democracy. With no impeachment mechanism in the Brotherhood-written constitution, they had no way to politically remove Morsi. So they started a petition calling for early elections. The petition received 22 million signatures, whereas Morsi was only elected by 13.2 million people.

Following the petition, Egyptians held the biggest political protest in history on June 30th, when 33 million people went to the streets calling for early elections. Egyptians risked their lives to go out in the street to save the future of their country, much as Ukrainians are now doing in Eastern Ukraine. In Egypt the military intervened against a theocratic dictator and in favor of Egyptians who put Egypt first.

The United States has been consistently pressuring Egypt to be “all inclusive” with members of the Brotherhood. Why should any nation strive to be inclusive of a movement that believes in destroying all opposition and diversity? The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology is treasonous to any country where it exists. The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

We need to take them at their own word, as delivered by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammad Badi:

Arab and Muslim regimes betray their people unless they confront not only Israel but also the US. Waging jihad against both is mandatory for all Muslims. Otherwise, “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad…”

All Muslims are required by their religion to fight as their highest priority, since “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice, and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as its enemies pursue life.”

The only solution for the Muslim Brotherhood is a complete dismantling of the organization. Period. Instead America has adopted a policy of apology and appeasement, placating the terrorists, seeing them as the victims. This is all based on the altogether false narrative that the Brotherhood is a democratic and peaceful organization.

America has been on a trajectory of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies while at the same time weakening our military. This is a very dangerous path, and our lack of attention to the reality in the Middle East is not going to serve us well in the future.