An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Anyone heard the Muslim community in the Unites States speak out yet against Daesh (Islamic States)? Me neither. But Barack Obama and crowd says Islamic State is not Islamic…..sheesh
For a complete Muslim Brotherhood organizational chart operating in the United States click here.
For the completed translation of the Muslim Brotherhood plan for the United States click here.
For a graphic of the Islamic organizations click here.
For a list of people that are implicated in Islamic criminal activity in the United States click here.
For a library on historical Muslim Brotherhood terror events click here.
The very liberal Council of Foreign Relations has a summary of the Muslim Brotherhood click here.
Events happen in your own backyard, are you paying attention?
The genesis of what we need to know begins with the Holy Land Foundation investigation and trial. Links are numerous yet a good one for reference is here, here and here.
Nothing happens in Washington DC without several conversations with lawyers. That is actually easy as there are lawyers all over DC and just about every powerbroker in the Obama administration is a lawyer. But these lawyers twist the law, find means to blur the spirit of the law, seek methods not to enforce the law and most of all use nefarious reasons on discretion of the law when it comes to enforcement.
So we have immigration. We have promises to illegals. We have refugees to deal with. We have amnesty. Honestly, none of this is necessary at all if DACA had never occurred and deportation and adherence to immigration law was enforced.
Once the 9-11 Commission Report was published, there was a serious chapter in that report on adherence to law with regard to immigration. Every lawmaker swore to compliance and actions of the reports recommendations for the single sake of national security. Today, that is all forgotten. There are countless reasons for this agenda and now we have to look at the Office for Legal Council and Eric Holder. Holder has likely learned to not put anything in writing given his past obfuscations and lies.
Be sure to read the comments to this article at the bottom.
Has Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel for its legal opinion?
If the White House press corps wants to keep government honest, here’s a question to ask as President Obama prepares to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants by executive order: Has he sought, and does he have, any written legal justification from the Attorney General and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for his actions?
This would be standard operating procedure in any normal Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder is the executive branch’s chief legal officer, and Administrations of both parties typically ask OLC for advice on the parameters of presidential legal authority.
The Obama Administration has asked OLC for its legal opinions on such controversial national security questions as drone strikes and targeting U.S. citizens abroad. It was right do so even though the Constitution gives Presidents enormous authority on war powers and foreign policy.
But a Justice-OLC opinion is all the more necessary on domestic issues because the President’s authority is far more limited. He is obliged to execute the laws that Congress writes. A President should always seek legal justification for controversial actions to ensure that he is on solid constitutional ground as well as to inspire public confidence in government.
Yet as far as we have seen, Mr. Obama sought no such legal justification in 2012 when he legalized hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The only document we’ve found in justification is a letter from the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Janet Napolitano, to law enforcement agencies citing “the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion.” Judging by recent White House leaks, that same flimsy argument will be the basis for legalizing millions more adults.
It’s possible Messrs. Obama and Holder haven’t sought an immigration opinion because they suspect there’s little chance that even a pliant Office of Legal Counsel could find a legal justification. Prosecutorial discretion is a vital legal concept, but it is supposed to be exercised in individual cases, not to justify a refusal to follow the law against entire classes of people.
White House leakers are also whispering as a legal excuse that Congress has provided money to deport only 400,000 illegal migrants a year. But a President cannot use lack of funds to justify a wholesale refusal to enforce a statute. There is never enough money to enforce every federal law at any given time, and lack of funds could by used in the future by any President to refuse to enforce any statute. Imagine a Republican President who decided not to enforce the Clean Air Act.
We support more liberal immigration but not Mr. Obama’s means of doing it on his own whim because he’s tired of working with Congress. His first obligation is to follow the law, which begins by asking the opinion of the government’s own lawyers.
Much has been written about the CommonCore educational system being pushed on state education systems nationally. While more than 60% of states push back after really learning what the syllabus is about, it has been proven what the system is about but few are listening.
CommonCore was created by leaders of global corporations to indoctrinate students into a very narrow channel of choices when it came to what they could study for the sake only of the future of business enterprise.
But now we have even more companies vying for a slice of the money via no bid contracts as a result of studies, marketing and database analysis of student performance.
CommonCore is yet another platform for fraud, collusion and abuse where most sadly students and parents are the pawns. C’mon parents get involved for the sake of your children, for the sake of their education and for the sake of taxpayers and for the sake of a viable and sound future of America.
As states race to implement the Common Core academic standards, companies are fighting for a slice of the accompanying testing market, expected to be worth billions of dollars in coming years.
That jockeying has brought allegations of bid-rigging in one large pricing agreement involving 11 states—the latest hiccup as the math and reading standards are rolled out—while in roughly three dozen others, education companies are battling for contracts state by state.
Mississippi’s education board in September approved an emergency $8 million contract to Pearson PLC for tests aligned with Common Core, sidestepping the state’s contract-review board, which had found the transaction illegal because it failed to meet state rules regarding a single-source bid.
When Maryland officials were considering a roughly $60 million proposal to develop computerized testing for Common Core that month, state Comptroller Peter Franchot also objected that Pearson was the only bidder. “How are we ever going to know if taxpayers are getting a good deal if there is no competition?” the elected Democrat asked, before being outvoted by a state board in approving the contract.
ENLARGE
Mississippi and Maryland are two of the states that banded together in 2010, intending to look for a testing-service provider together. The coalition of 11 states plus the District of Columbia hoped joining forces would result in a better product at a lower price, but observers elsewhere shared some of Mr. Franchot’s concerns.
The bidding process, which both states borrowed from a similar New Mexico contract, is now the subject of a lawsuit in that state by a Pearson competitor.
For decades, states essentially set their own academic standards, wrote their own curricula and designed their own tests. In a bid partly to help the U.S. education system keep up with overseas rivals, state leaders began working on shared benchmarks.
With financial and policy incentives from the Obama administration, 45 states and D.C. initially adopted Common Core. But the standards have faced pushback from some parents and conservatives who say they represent federal overreach. Two states have pulled out and are writing their own standards.
Still, most states are implementing Common Core and accompanying testing this year. The sheer size of that effort and this year’s deadline heighten the stakes and exacerbate the difficulty of hiring test suppliers.
“Winning the policy battle was not even half the battle,” said Michael McShane, a research fellow in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, who is skeptical about Common Core. “It was more like 10%, and 90% of the battle is implementation.”
The $2.46 billion-a-year U.S. testing market is seeing more competition beyond the three traditional powers of Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Co. and McGraw-Hill Education CTB, according to Simba Information, a market-research firm. While McGraw-Hill recently got a $72 million contract for assessment services with several states, meanwhile, midsize vendors such as AIR Assessment and Educational Testing Service are winning big states like Florida and California.
Amplify, the education subsidiary of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal, also provides assessment products.
Some experts say legacy companies are best able to meet states’ demands and offer familiar relationships during this period of flux. At the same time, the move to new standards coincided with a switch to digital and online learning that has forced vendors to rethink their strategies.
Maryland’s contract with Pearson was built off the one in New Mexico, which took the lead in writing the bidding documents for a four-year, roughly $26 million contract that applied to that state. But other states in the coalition were meant to copy the contract and competition, meaning its full value could balloon to $1 billion.
In the spring, New Mexico field-tested new state exams. The state relied on Pearson for a piece of software that delivers the test. AIR Assessment, a rival company to Pearson, protested over the bidding process last year and filed a lawsuit in the Santa Fe First Judicial District this past spring alleging that only Pearson could fulfill the bid requirements.
This summer, Judge Sarah M. Singleton ruled that state administrators had to review AIR Assessment’s concerns. New Mexico officials subsequently found the concerns invalid.
AIR Assessment is appealing that finding and asking that New Mexico reopen the bidding process with new specifications for the next school year—potentially reopening the contracts in all 11 states and D.C. Judge Singleton could rule as soon as this month, according to Jon Cohen, president of AIR Assessment, a division of the American Institutes for Research, a not-for-profit organization.
“We just want a fair bid,” Mr. Cohen said, whose company recently won a $220 million contract to provide Common Core-related testing products over six years to Florida. A spokesman for New Mexico’s education department called AIR’s allegations “frivolous.” Pearson declined to comment on the suit.
“You’re seeing a whole ecosystem transform,” said Shilpi Niyogi, a Pearson official. “There’s new players and new innovation, and we’re constantly looking at the relationship between innovation and scale.”
Jonathon Gruber should not be the villain. He is an expert on how to finesse government and he made money doing it. The villains are ONLY the Democrat lawmakers and powerbrokers as it is exclusively the Democrats that forced the deal-making and cunning objective to pass the law known as the Affordable Care Act.
Several government agencies paid Gruber for his consulting, including the Department of Justice paying $1.7 million for his expert witness testimony. Then a handful of states paid Gruber for his services.
It is remarkable that it took so long for Gruber’s presentations and truths to bubble to the surface. The Democrats punked America and the costs into the hundreds of millions continue to be tabulated. Gruber WAS NOT the only one to profit in this historical and epic conspiracy.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi declared that Obamacare was a jobs bill? “It’s about jobs,” Pelosi said in 2011, during a news conference to mark the first anniversary of passage of the Affordable Care Act. “Does it create jobs? Health insurance reform creates 4 million jobs.”
Like many other promises about Obamacare, that hasn’t worked out. But there is no doubt that Obamacare created a lot of work for at least one American — MIT professor Jonathan Gruber. Gruber’s frank admissions that he and others deceived the public about Obamacare have drawn a lot of attention in recent days. But the money that Gruber made from Obamacare raises yet another issue about his involvement in the project. Throughout 2009 and 2010, he energetically advocated a bill from which he stood to profit. And when it became law, the money rolled in.
In 2009, as Obamacare was moving its way through Senate committees, Gruber, who had achieved a measure of fame as the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts, was a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services. In March of that year, he received a contract for $95,000 to work on the project, and in June he received a second contract to continue that work; it was worth $297,600. Together, they comprise the “nearly $400,000” that critics have said Gruber received to work on Obamacare.
But after the bill became law, Gruber made a good deal more from it. The Affordable Care Act provided for states to set up exchanges to sell taxpayer-subsidized insurance coverage. For those states that chose to do so, exchanges would have to be built from the ground up. Studies would have to be done. Contracts would be let.
In 2010, the state of Wisconsin, under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, paid Gruber $400,000 to do a study of the impact of healthcare reform. By the time Gruber finished his report, Republican Scott Walker had been elected governor and wasn’t much interested in using Gruber’s study. “State officials did not invite Gruber to Wisconsin for the release of his study nor did they set up a conference call with him for reporters or even provide them with his contact information,” the Madison, Wis., Capital Times reported. “That is unusual for an important report like this, which cost $400,000.”
In the two years between March 2011 and March 2013, the state of Minnesota paid Gruber $329,000 to study how to make its exchange conform with Affordable Care Act requirements.
In 2012, the state of West Virginia signed a contract with Gruber to study its healthcare system. “The state will pay MIT professor Jonathan Gruber $121,500 to understand the states health insurance landscape and revisit key assumptions about state health care policy,” the Charleston Daily Mail reported in September of that year. “Gruber is a policy rock star of sorts. He’s advised more than a half dozen states on health care reform.”
In November 2011, the state of Vermont hired a consulting firm that used Gruber to study the state exchange. Gruber was paid at least $91,875 for his work.
In 2012, the state of Michigan included Gruber in a multi-firm, $481,050 contract to study its exchange system. It’s not clear how much of that went to Gruber himself.
The bottom line is that Obamacare has been very, very good to Jonathan Gruber. Now that he is in the news for other reasons, the public is also learning how much he profited from the bill he did so much to promote.
Of course others profited from Obamacare, too, and still are. Republican Mike Leavitt, a former governor of Utah and Mitt Romney adviser, has a consulting firm that has made millions off the exchanges. But Gruber’s recent admissions might put him in a special category. He is, by his own account, a man who intentionally deceived the public in order to pass a measure from which he stood to profit handsomely.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million for advice, as more videos surface showing him undercutting the landmark law
Four U.S. states and the federal government have padded Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber’s wallet to the tune of $5.9 million since 2000, including millions connected to his work on the Affordable Care Act.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist has been pilloried for collecting $392,600 from the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department while the law was being written, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Gruber’s consulting contracts give states and the feds access to a proprietary formula that can determine how changes in a health care system’s structure will affect costs.
The ‘Gruber Microsimulation Model’ is what he sold to the White House. It helped Obama’s team anticipate what the influential Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would say about various features of the final plan – and whether their costs would officially be considered ‘taxes.’
You MUST read more here and videos of Gruber-gate are included.
Tensions and meetings are mounting as the November 24 date approaches. If a deal is reached you can be the 114th session of the U.S. Congress will scrutinize every word as no one has trusted Barack Obama or John Kerry on this process. Allies have been sidelined in the process and betrayal is on the horizon if a deal is struck.
Meanwhile Iran demands that the West comply with their demands and such demands have not been spelled out or forthcoming. If no deal is reached the consequences are just as bad if not worse. This is a time to look cautiously at allies, territory, weapons, dates and sanctions.
Meanwhile there is Oman, a quiet and settled country that has been an interlocutor in the process.
US State Department spokeswoman Psaki said that the US remained “very focused” on making progress in talks with Iran and on signing an agreement by the November 24 deadline.
MOSCOW, November 10 (Sputnik) – The talks in Oman on Iran’s controversial nuclear program were “tough, direct and serious,” US Department of State spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday.
The talks involved EU diplomat Catherine Ashton, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Psaki said her country remained “very focused” on making progress in talks with the Islamic Republic and on signing the agreement by the November 24 deadline.
“There is still time to do so,” she told reporters.
The meeting between the three foreign policy chiefs wrapped up the second day of talks in the run-up to broader negotiations between Iran, EU’s Ashton and P5+1, which includes Russia, the United States, Britain, France, China, and Germany.
The trilateral meeting was called to address major differences that have been hindering a comprehensive agreement. On Sunday, the three envoys discussed Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the possibility of easing Western sanctions against Tehran.
The talks between Iran and the group of six powers will continue on Tuesday in the city of Muscat, Oman.
The West has accused Iran of attempting to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, while Tehran argues that its nuclear ambition is to meet the country’s growing energy needs and achieve other peaceful goals.
Last January the United States agreed to provide limited sanctions relief if Iran froze its nuclear program. Since then, Iran has halted production and opened the door to international inspectors.
In November 2013, during talks held in Geneva, the P5+1 group agreed to reach a deal with the Tehran delegation, guaranteeing the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program by July 2014. The deadline was later extended to November 24, 2014.
So what is in Oman’s future? One of my favorite analysts has published a soft alarm bell.
In 1970, with British help and support, Qaboos bin Sa’id overthrew his father and took the reins of powers in the Sultanate of Oman. Sultan Qaboos was an enlightened monarch, and firmly guided the xenophobic and isolationist state back into the modern world. Oman has since been a model of neutrality and tolerance, often acting as a bridge between regional adversaries (it is no coincidence that Oman served as the initial go-between for U.S.-Iran talks). Nevertheless, when push came to shove, Oman has done what is needed to combat terrorism. U.S. aircraft based in Oman launched some of the initial airstrikes against the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom.
Oman is also strategically important. For all Western policymakers fret about Iranian activities in the Strait of Hormuz, they often forget that Oman occupies one side of the important waterway. Should Iran gain a toehold on both sides of the Strait, the calculus of Persian Gulf security would change.
Alas, the status quo cannot last forever. Sultan Qaboos is aging. A “confirmed bachelor,” Qaboos has produced no offspring. Succession looms. And, perhaps never closer than now. ForeignPolicy.com today has an interesting piece speculating that Qaboos, who will turn 74 next week, may be on his deathbed. The Sultan has in recent weeks sought to dispel the rumors that he suffers from terminal colon cancer, but his frail appearance and his subsequent cancellation of his forthcoming national day appearance have added fuel to the fire.
In theory, when Qaboos dies, a new leader is supposed to be chosen by consensus among the leading factions of the royal elite. But if there is no consensus, then a letter that Qaboos will leave should help determine that successor. The problem is that surrounding countries have everything to gain and nothing to lose by disputing the authenticity of such a letter or by putting forward fraudulent copies favoring their own proxy. While it’s doubtful that Oman will make as radical a political shift as it did as a result of the last succession, the failure of the White House to adopt a proactive strategy toward the region does put its future in doubt. While Washington shouldn’t necessarily muck about in Omani royal politics, it is a vital interest to protect the integrity of the process and prevent Iran from doing so.
There are a few nightmare scenarios. One is that a pro-Iranian ruler will become Oman’s next leader. Another is an outbreak of fighting. This is farfetched, of course. Just as Saudi troops invaded Bahrain to prevent a Shi’ite triumph over the Khalifa ruling family, it would not sit idly while another friendly monarchy fell to what it considers hostile forces. Then again, Oman is neither Sunni nor Shi’ite, and so long as the monarchy isn’t threatened—and it won’t be—then Saudi Arabia might choose more subtle ways to interfere.
Herein lays another danger. Should both Iran and Saudi Arabia begin supporting proxy figures or movements, it might not be long before this undercut Omani stability in other ways. After all, Oman has been a pillar of stability for decades, but then again so was Syria; at least since Hafez al-Assad staged his 1970 coup. Oman could also face the resurgence of regional tension; it wasn’t too long ago in the scheme of things that it fought an insurgency against communist rebels in Dhofar.
Let us hope that Qaboos overcomes his current health crisis but, realistically, septuagenarian leaders do not last forever. The United States should hope for the best in Oman, but it’s long past time when U.S. officials should plan for the worst. Alas, planning for the worst case is something to which too often American strategists across administrations seem adverse. We should not be. Oman is too important to lose.
