Question about Computers & Internet

Open Question

NO What's the job growth Numbers between the Past Presidents Bush Senior Clinton Bush Jr and Obama

Posted by on

Ad

Add Your Answer

Uploading: 0%

my-video-file.mp4

Complete. Click "Add" to insert your video. Add

×

Loading...
Loading...

Related Questions:

1 Answer

Who were the US presidents


  1. George Washington, 1789-1797
  2. John Adams, 1797-1801
  3. Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
  4. James Madison, 1809-1817
  5. James Monroe, 1817-1825
  6. John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
  7. Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
  8. Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
  9. William Henry Harrison, 1841
  10. John Tyler, 1841-1845
  11. James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
  12. Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
  13. Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
  14. Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
  15. James Buchanan, 1857-1861
  16. Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
  17. Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
  18. Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-1877
  19. Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
  20. James Abram Garfield, 1881
  21. Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
  22. Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
  23. Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
  24. Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
  25. William McKinley, 1897-1901
  26. Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
  27. William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
  28. Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
  29. Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
  30. Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
  31. Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
  32. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
  33. Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
  34. Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-1961
  35. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
  36. Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
  37. Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
  38. Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
  39. James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
  40. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
  41. George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
  42. William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
  43. George Walker Bush, 2001-2009
  44. Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-2017
  45. Donald John Trump, 2017-

Feb 12, 2017 | The Computers & Internet

1 Answer

How many presidents did congress TRY to impeach?


Two presidents were actually impeached by the House but the Senate cleared both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
See Impeachment Wikipedia

Jan 29, 2017 | Computers & Internet

1 Answer

What ties does Huma Adebin have with Syria


The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.
The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin's work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin's own mother.

This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da'wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future attacks on this country by Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin's involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was "no evidence" that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.
To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com "fact-check" piece that cited as its sole source... Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as "my hero" during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.
Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.
In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.
The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.
Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.
The Muslim World League was "perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world," according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, "which is formally designated as a foreign organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda," he wrote.
That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a "nexus" of like-minded people who shared the same goals.
A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin's father explains the concept of "Muslim Minority Affairs," the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to "establish a global Sharia in our modern times."
Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.
Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her "second daughter." Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.
As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.
Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.
She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

Oct 30, 2016 | Cars & Trucks

1 Answer

What has happened? Can ICC arrest & try U'S troops for war crimes without legal protection and guarantee under US law?


Again this is not a router question...... but this is what politifact.com says on the subject.

First, some background on the International Criminal Court and its relationship to the United States.
The ICC is a permanent, independent court headquartered in the Hague that investigates and brings to justice individuals who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, according to the Congressional Research Service. Cases may be referred to the ICC either by a member state, the court's own prosecutor, or the U.N. Security Council. The court only investigates or prosecutes serious crimes by individuals (not organizations or governments), and then, only when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to handle them.
The court's founding document, known as the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. So far, 122 nations have become members of the court. But while the United States signed the Rome Statute under President Bill Clinton in 2000, it has not moved on to ratification -- the step that would make membership official.
This position is intentional. Under President George W. Bush, the United States actually went so far as to "un-sign" the Rome Statute. The reasons included concerns that the court could exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens or military officials, as well as a perceived lack of checks and balances on court pursuits.
More recently, United States opposition has softened -- within limits.
In 2008, the United States decided not to veto a Security Council resolution to refer a case from the Darfur region of Sudan. Then, when Obama took office, it began attending sessions as an "observer" nation in 2009. In January 2010, a Justice Department review found that "informational" support for "particular investigations or prosecutions" would be legal under laws passed under Bush.
In theory, the Obama administration could choose to seek Senate ratification. But even if it did, experts say, the administration's ability to win the 67 votes in the Senate is almost nonexistent, given the extent of lingering concern about U.S. membership in the court.
"President Obama has made no indication that he 'wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.'s International Criminal Court,'" said Steven Groves, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Since everyone knows such a transmittal would be dead on arrival, the likelihood that the president would do so before the end of his term is negligible, if not zero."
Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor who specializes in international law, agrees, calling the email's claim "completely wrong."

"Although the U.S. is no longer actively opposed to the court's existence and operation, as was the Bush administration, the Obama administration has no intention of submitting the ICC statute to the Senate," Ratner said.
In other words, the email is wrong to claim that Obama, "with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power." All Obama could theoretically do is ask for Senate support. Even if the Democrats had 67 votes -- which they don't -- ratification for this particular agreement would be an uphill battle.
We should add that the email has some other misleading elements about the court, such as when it says the court can "arrest and try U.S. troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under U.S. Law, and from which there is no appeal."
While the ICC can issue "arrest warrants," it cannot enforce them. The ICC "cannot 'arrest' anyone -- it has no police power whatsoever," said Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service Anthony Clark Arend. Instead, it has to rely on its member states to do so, and "a state would not want to cooperate with the ICC if it sought arrest based on trumped-up charges," Ratner said.
Ratner added that, contrary to the email's claim about weak legal protections, the ICC procedures are "generally on par with U.S. law, with small exceptions such as trial by judges rather than a jury, and looser rules for admission of evidence."
Our ruling
The chain email says Obama "wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.'s International Criminal Court." While the Obama administration has been more willing to engage with the court than the Bush administration, which was strongly opposed to cooperating, Obama has made no sign that he wants to become a full-blown member of the court. Even if he did, doing so would require 67 votes in the Senate, making it essentially a nonstarter. We rate the claim False.

Sep 09, 2014 | Computers & Internet

Not finding what you are looking for?
Computers & Internet Logo

Related Topics:

21 people viewed this question

Ask a Question

Usually answered in minutes!

Top Computers & Internet Experts

Doctor PC
Doctor PC

Level 3 Expert

7733 Answers

kakima

Level 3 Expert

102366 Answers

David Payne
David Payne

Level 3 Expert

14161 Answers

Are you a Computer and Internet Expert? Answer questions, earn points and help others

Answer questions

Manuals & User Guides

Loading...