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.
Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion
The Russian delegation was sitting 3 chairs away from Ambassador Nikki Haley as she slammed Russia for their actions against Britain including the use of poison and the disdainful response by Putin towards Prime Minister Terresa May.
See the secret trial of the chemical weapon from Russia here.
As PM May expels almost 2 dozen Russian diplomats, actually they are spies, one wonders if Britain knew they were in country why they were not expelled previously. A theory has developed that Russian operatives applied the nerve agent, Novachok to the door handles of Skripal’s car. There was the case of the poison telephone:
Accounts of security deficiencies at weapons facilities indicate that, at least for a period in the 1990s, Moscow was not in firm control of its chemical weapons stockpiles or the people guarding them.
When Russian banking magnate Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary died in 1995 from organ failure after a military-grade poison was found on the telephone receiver of his Moscow office, an employee of a state chemical research institute confessed to having secretly supplied the toxin.
In a closed-door trial, Kivelidi’s business partner was convicted of poisoning Kivelidi over a dispute. At the trial, prosecutors said the business partner had obtained the poison, via several intermediaries, from Leonard Rink, an employee of a state chemical research institute known as GosNIIOKhT.
The same institute, according to Vil Mirzayanov, a Soviet chemical weapons scientist who later turned whistleblower, was part of the state chemical weapons programme and helped develop the “Novichok” family of nerve agents that Britain has said was responsible for poisoning Skripal. More here.
BRITAIN today ordered 23 Russian spooks to leave the country within a week in response to the spy poisoning scandal.
Theresa May told MPs that two dozen so-called diplomats who are in fact spies will be kicked out in a bid to stop Vladimir Putin meddling in Britain.
The PM said Russia had shown “contempt and defiance” in the aftermath of an attempt to kill ex-spy Sergei Skripal and warned that the poisoning represented “the unlawful use of force by Russia against the United Kingdom”.
She also confirmed that no ministers or members of the Royal Family will attend this summer’s World Cup in Russia – but stopped short of calling on the England team to pull out of the tournament.
Putin’s officials responded with fury, saying Britain’s tough response was “unacceptable, unjustified and shortsighted”.
But Jeremy Corbyn sparked anger when he suggested that Russia might NOT be behind the attack and compared the investigation to claims about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.
Mrs May also announced this afternoon:
New laws to help Britain defend itself from all forms of hostile Russian activity
Flights and goods from Russia will face extra checks to stop ill-gotten gains entering the UK
All planned talks with Russian officials, including a visit from the foreign minister, are cancelled
Assets belonging to Putin’s government will be frozen to stop them being used for wrongdoing
Suspected spies could be detained at Britain’s borders like terrorists under new powers
The UK’s allies France, Germany and the US are in full support of her tough stance
The expulsion of 23 Russian spies is the toughest act of its kind for 30 years – and will almost certainly spark a tit-for-tat diplomatic war, with British diplomats likely to be kicked out of Moscow.
Mrs May told the House of Commons: “To those who seek to do us harm, our message is clear – you are not welcome here.”
Blasting Putin’s refusal to respond to her demand for an explanation, the PM said: “It was right to offer Russia the opportunity to provide an explanation.
“But their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. They have provided no credible explanation that could suggest they lost control of their nerve agent.
“No explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom; no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law.
“Instead they have treated the use of a military grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.
“There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.
“This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.”
A police officer in a forensics suit as investigations continue into the poisoning
Any Russian spies who try to re-enter Britain will now be stopped at the border in the same way as terror suspects, the PM said.
She announced that sanctions on human rights violators will be stepped up, and vowed to freeze the assets of the Russian regime if they are being used to meddle in the UK.
Mrs May added: “We will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people – or their money – in our country.”
Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was due to visit Britain shortly, has had his invitation withdrawn, she announced.
The PM said: “I continue to believe it is not in our national interest to break off all dialogue between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.
“But in the aftermath of this appalling act against our country, this relationship cannot be the same.”
And she warned Putin that Britain will not stand alone, revealing that Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel have promised to present a united front against Russian atrocities.
The Russian embassy in London responded to Mrs May’s statement with fury, saying: “We consider this hostile action as totally unacceptable, unjustified and shortsighted.
“All the responsibility for the deterioration of the Russia-UK relationship lies with the current political leadership of Britain.”
After today’s escalation of hostilities, Brits visiting Russia were warned they must avoid talking publically about politics in case they attract the regime’s attention.
The Foreign Office updated its travel advice for the country, telling tourists they could face “anti-British sentiment or harassment”.
Officials added: “You’re advised to remain vigilant, avoid any protests or demonstrations and avoid commenting publically on political developments.”
The Russian regime has refused to explain its role in the attempted hit – saying it will take at least ten days to respond to the PM’s ultimatum.
And ambassador Alexander Yakovenko went further today, saying: “Everything done today is absolutely unacceptable and we consider this a provocation.
“The UK should follow international law. They have to present the request to the organisation and we are happy to consider this within the ten days.
“We believe this is a very serious provocation and of course we are not ready to talk.”
Soldiers wearing protective clothing at an address in Gillingham
It has emerged that police are looking for a mysterious couple who may be witnesses to the attack on Mr Skripal and his daughter while the investigation has widened from Salisbury to Gillingham.
The PM set Russia a deadline of midnight last night to explain how nerve agent novichok came to be used in the brazen attack – but the regime responded by taunting Britain and boasting about its nuclear arsenal.
Mrs May held a meeting of the National Security Council this morning, before returning to the Commons to outline the next steps in the campaign to punish Russia for the assassination attempt.
Britain has also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in a bid to hold the regime to account, while the UK’s Nato allies pledged to stand firm alongside us.
This morning Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, made the bizarre claim that Russia hasn’t actually received a formal request for information from the UK.
He said Putin’s government would take ten days to respond once the official message is received.
Several sources familiar with McCabe’s move told NBC News that he made his decision to retire as a result of a meeting with Wray in which the inspector general’s investigation was discussed.
BI: Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing a recommendation from the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility to fire former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington Thomson Reuters
McCabe was forced out of the FBI earlier this year amid an internal investigation by the Office of Inspector General into his approval of unauthorized disclosures to the media in October 2016 about the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation.
He’s scheduled to retire on Sunday, and a possible firing — which sources told The Times could could as soon as Friday — could endanger his pension benefits.
The Department of Justice’s inspector general Michael Horowitz reportedly concluded in a report that McCabe was not forthcoming during the OIG review. The FBI office subsequently recommended that Sessions fire McCabe, according to The Times.
The Wall Street Journal article at the center of the OIG’s inquiry was published on October 30, 2016, two days after then-FBI director James Comey announced in a letter to Congress that the bureau was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business when she was secretary of state.
The article was a highly detailed account of internal strife within the top ranks of the DOJ about how to proceed after FBI agents investigating former New York congressman Anthony Weiner discovered 650,000 emails on his laptop that could have been sent to or from Clinton’s private email server. Many of the emails came from accounts belonging to Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, who was also Clinton’s longtime aide and a senior adviser to her campaign, The Journal reported.
At the same time, DOJ anticorruption prosecutors were at odds with FBI officials over whether to continue pursuing a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s financial dealings.
While DOJ officials believed there wasn’t enough evidence to move forward with the probe and wouldn’t authorize further investigatory measures, FBI officials, including McCabe, believed they had the authority to continue the investigation using whatever leads they had already acquired, the report said.
Justice Department rules prevent investigators from taking significant actions that could be seen as trying to influence an election. And when a senior DOJ official called McCabe in August 2016 to express his disapproval with the FBI’s continued focus on the Clinton Foundation probe amid the heated election season, McCabe reportedly pushed back.
“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe said, according to The Journal.
The official replied, after a brief pause: “Of course not.”
The reporter who authored the Journal’s article, Devlin Barrett, was in touch with two top FBI officials on the phone two days before the story broke, according to text messages released in February. The officials were FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who often worked with McCabe, and then-FBI spokesman Michael Kortan.
While law-enforcement officials often speak to the press on background in order to provide more complete details about an ongoing story, they are prohibited from revealing information about ongoing investigations, like the Clinton emails and Clinton Foundation probes.
McCabe stepped down as deputy director in January after FBI director Christopher Wray briefed him about the impending OIG report about his conduct.
The deputy director’s ouster came following a string of public attacks President Donald Trump leveled against him, accusing him of putting his thumb on the scale in favor of Clinton.
Trump’s attacks were based on information contained in a separate Wall Street Journal article published one week before Barrett’s.
McCabe’s wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, mounted an unsuccessful run for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015. The Journal reported on October 24, 2016 that her campaign received $675,000 in donations from the Virginia Democratic Party and from Common Good VA, the super PAC run by Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton supporter. None of the donations came from Clinton or her family.
Trump latched onto the revelations, accusing McCabe of corruption and anti-Trump bias based on his wife’s political campaign.
McCabe wasn’t in charge of the Clinton investigation at the time, and didn’t take on an “oversight role” in the probe until February 2016, long after his wife lost her election bid.
and documents in January that confirmed McCabe was not warned against becoming involved in the Clinton investigation. But he recused himself anyway following The Journal’s report about his wife’s campaign.
Most notably, the upcoming OIG report detailed by The Times stands in contrast to Trump’s assertion, given its focus on McCabe’s authorization of disclosures that ultimately resulted in a negative story about Clinton.
It is a matter of law….the democrats and some republicans are providing higher protection for illegals and criminals than they do for just plain ol’ Americans. At least they should be forced to register or something similar like a declaration that they are more loyal to illegals and criminal action than they are to Americas.
Some democrats are posturing to abolish ICE as an agency.
The Democrats mulling a run for the White House in 2020 are facing intense pressure from liberals to campaign on abolishing the agency that enforces federal immigration laws, a proposal that was once relegated to the far-left fringe.
In protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward illegal immigration, liberal commentators and writers have been embracing the idea of gutting the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which identifies, arrests and deports illegal immigrants inside the United States.
“This is a growing position on the left, and I imagine 2020 Democratic presidential aspirants will have to grapple with it,” liberal writer and MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted.
We have seen California become a sanctuary state and now Illinois is too. We have seen mayors refuse to cooperate with ICE supported by their governors. Can states refuse to cooperate with ICE or how about other Federal agencies like ATF or DEA?
As long as these politicians provide legal cover and sanctuary for foreign criminals they should all be registered as ‘foreign agents’ under the FARA.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
We have a missing illegal criminal from Denver that is part of a case of vehicular homicide….Denver law enforcement let him go under bail even though ICE had a detainer on him….he cannot be found.
Meanwhile, let us look at Illinois shall we?
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner smiles while surrounded by law enforcement officials and immigrant rights activists in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood Monday, Aug. 28, 2017, after signing legislation that will limit how local and state police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The narrow measure prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining someone solely because of immigration status, or because of so-called federal immigration detainers. AP (Ashlee Rezin /)
With mariachis performing in the background, Governor Bruce Rauner signed the TRUST Act on Monday, at a Mexican restaurant in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, officially barring cooperation between Illinois police departments and immigration officials.
The TRUST Act, valid in all cases except where a federal judge has issued a warrant for arrest, will make Illinois more welcoming to immigrants and refugees, according to its supporters.
The law denies local law enforcement the ability to detain people on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency charged with identifying and investigating immigrants present in the country illegally. It also prohibits local officials from inquiring about a person’s immigration status, something Ruiz-Velasco called a “very important protection,” that will make immigrants more comfortable reporting crimes to local police.
“The TRUST Act will ensure that those who live in this state of limbo [as concerns immigration status] can have one certainty: When their lives and their families are in danger, they can turn to the police without their world being taken away from them,” said Serafina Ha, of the Korean immigrant services agency, the Hana Center.
Support for the law came from Illinois law enforcement functionaries, as well as over 170 faith leaders, and over 170 Illinois employers. The Campaign for a Welcoming Illinois, in support of the bill, engaged over 84 organizations and 14,000 people in the state, according to ICIRR.
However some political leaders, including many downstate Republicans, voiced opposition.
“We are a country founded by immigrants, but those were legal immigrants, and I think the last thing Illinois wants is to see a sanctuary state, and this moves us in that direction,” state Sen. Kyle McCarter, a Republican from Lebanon, Ill., told the Chicago Tribune.
Just five Republicans voted for the law in the Illinois Senate, and only one Republican voted for it in the House.
Passing with mainly Democratic support on May 5, 2017, the law had since sat on Governor Rauner’s desk as supporters organized through letters, press conferences and rallies.
“This will provide an unprecedented level of protection for Illinois’ half-million undocumented residents, who could otherwise enter the deportation pipeline through any simple interaction with police including a traffic violation,” ICIRR said in a statement. “Illinois is now the gold standard for statewide protections against deportation.”
The Pentagon says a military parade requested by President Trump will take place in Washington on Veterans Day to honor those who have served in the military from the Revolutionary War through today.
The document addressed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provides “initial guidance,” including assurances that the display will not include tanks, to minimize damage to the city streets. The D.C. City Council had already tweeted its objections (“Tanks but No Tanks“).
The memo does not estimate the cost, but as NPR has reported, estimates have suggested it would be between $3 million and $50 million. Tamara Keith and Tom Bowman reported that holding it on Veterans Day, which also commemorates the end of World War I, could reduce complaints:
“By potentially tying the parade to the 100th anniversary of the end of the ‘War To End All Wars,’ there may be an effort to associate with the tradition of celebrating war victories and avoid associations with countries like North Korea, China and Russia, which regularly hold military parades, in part for the propaganda value.
“Members of Congress from both parties have been critical of the idea of a military parade, questioning its cost and necessity.”
The memo says the parade will begin at the White House and proceed to the U.S. Capitol, with a “heavy air component at the end.” It notes that Trump will be surrounded by military heroes in the reviewing area at the Capitol.
The memo listed a number of guidelines for the parade on Nov. 11 and said the parade route will be from the White House to the Capitol and have a “heavy air component at the end of the parade.”
Military parades in the United States are generally rare. Such parades in other countries are usually staged to celebrate victories in battle or showcase military might.
In 1991, tanks and thousands of troops paraded through Washington to celebrate the ousting of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War.
The District of Columbia Council had ridiculed the idea of a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, the 1.2-mile (1.9-km) stretch between the Capitol and the White House that is also the site of the Trump International Hotel.
The top person on John Kerry’s Iran JPOA team was Wendy Sherman. But then we have Obama’s dear friend Penny Pritzker in the mix too, along with Barbara Boxer and Hillary’s Jake Sherman all part of this National Security Action team, which is all things against Trump. So, while we do have the Director of MoveOn in the mix…this group likely has some robust funding from Soros.
This is a strike force that even includes Jeremy Bash.
He served as Chief of Staff of the CIA (2009-2011) and Defense Department (2011-2013), was Panetta’s right hand person and perhaps we should remember it was Panetta that allowed Hollywood access to top secret information to make a movie, that Zero Dark Thirty movie.
According to a June 15, 2011, email from Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, the Obama White House was intent on “trying to have visibility into the UBL (Usama bin Laden) projects and this is likely a high profile one.”
In early July 2012, Obama’s senior White House adviser on Iran, Puneet Talwar, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s right-hand man, Jake Sullivan, arrived in the sleepy Arabian sultanate of Oman, 150 miles across sparkling Gulf waters from the Iranian coast. It was the first significant back-channel contact with Tehran.
FNC: A group of about 50 former Obama administration officials recently formed a think tank called National Security Action to attack the Trump administration’s national security policies.
The mission statement of the group is anything but subtle: “National Security Action is dedicated to advancing American global leadership and opposing the reckless policies of the Trump administration that endanger our national security and undermine U.S. strength in the world.”
National Security Action plans to pursue typical liberal foreign policy themes such as climate change, challenging President Trump’s leadership, immigration and allegations of corruption between the president and foreign powers.
This organization uses the acronym NSA, which is ironic. Three of its founding members – Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Power – likely were involved in abusing intelligence from the federal NSA (National Security Agency) to unmask the names of Trump campaign staff from intelligence reports and to leak NSA intercepts to the media to hurt Donald Trump politically. This included a leak to the media of an NSA transcript in February 2017 of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s discussion with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak. No one has been prosecuted for this leak.
Given the likely involvement of Rhodes, Rice and Power to weaponize intelligence against the Trump presidential campaign, will their anti-Trump NSA issue an apology for these abuses?
It is interesting that the new anti-Trump group says nothing in its mandate about protecting the privacy of Americans from illegal surveillance, preventing the politicization of U.S. intelligence agencies or promoting aggressive intelligence oversight. Maybe this is because the founders plan to abuse U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on Republican lawmakers and candidates if they join a future Democratic administration.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for this group of former Obama officials, who were part of the worst U.S. foreign policy in history, to condemn the current president’s successful international leadership and foreign policy.
After all, ISIS was born on President Obama’s watch because of his mismanagement of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and his “leading from behind” Middle East policy. The Syrian civil war spun out of control because of the incompetence of President Obama and his national security team.
This was a team that provided false information to the American people about the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the nuclear deal with Iran. I wonder if the anti-Trump NSA will include videos on its website of former National Security Adviser Susan Rice falsely claiming on five Sunday morning news shows in September 2012 that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was “spontaneous” and in response to an anti-Muslim video.
And of course there’s the North Korean nuclear and missile programs that surged during the Obama years due to the administration’s “Strategic Patience” policy, an approach designed to kick this problem down the road to the next president. Because of President Obama’s incompetence, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un may have an H-bomb that he soon will be able to load onto an intercontinental ballistic missile to attack the United States.
It must appall this group of former Obama national security officials that President Trump is succeeding as he undoes everything they worked on.
ISIS will soon control no territory in Iraq or Syria because of the Trump administration’s intensified attacks on it and arming of Kurdish militias.
In sharp contrast to President Obama, President Trump drew a chemical weapons red line in Syria and enforced it.
North Korea is pushing for talks with the U.S. in response to strong United Nations sanctions the U.S. worked to obtain in 2017. And compliance with the new sanctions has been significantly improved, especially by China, as the result of President Trump’s actions.
President Trump repaired the damage done to U.S.-Israel relations by President Obama and has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – something several previous presidents promised but failed to do.
Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf stopped in 2017, likely due to the more assertive Iran policy of President Trump. This includes the president’s successful effort to build a stronger U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia.
President Trump is right when he says he inherited a mess on national security from the Obama administration. This is because President Obama and his national security team undermined U.S. credibility and left President Trump a much more dangerous world. I doubt the new anti-Trump National Security Action think tank will succeed in convincing Americans otherwise.
