Democrats Selective Memory on Comey and Russia/Trump

Recently, in another one of Fox News' Fair and Balanced political food fights, I listened to a Democratic strategist argue that the FBI Director's firing was "unprecedented".  Unfortunately, that comment was never challenged and was a lie.  The fact is that the former Democrat, President Bill Clinton set the precedent when he fired the then-FBI Director William Sessions at the recommendation of his Attorney General Janet Reno.

Then there's this Russian conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with them and Putin to become President.  Democrats seem to forget that in early January, before Trump was even sworn in, the Director of National Intelligence released a co-authored, non-classified report by the FBI, NSA, and CIA titled: “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”.  The key assessments of that report were as follows:

• "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."
• "We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President - elect Trump."

In coming to the first conclusion, the report stated the following:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012 , and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

So, clearly, Hillary was the target of the hacking, without any specific attempt to put Trump into office.  The fact is, the email dumps by Wikileaks would have happened no matter who ran against Hillary. In the second assessment, the most powerful word in the statement is "developed".   This clearly means that Trump was not "job one" in the hacking of the DNC server and Wikileaks.  It took time for the Russians to decide that Trump was the better candidate from their perspective.

I just wish that the media would be honest and well-versed in the topics they are covering, so that political parties couldn't play these intentional games by hiding known facts and relying heavily on the knowledge that voters have short memories.

References:

An FBI director has been fired only once before — and it was under dramatically different circumstances: http://www.businessinsider.com/last-fbi-director-fired-bill-clinton-william-sessions-2017-5

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

What Doesn't Make Sense About the Russian Hack

In January, and before Trump was inaugurated, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA issued a joint report on the Russian hacking of the DNC email server and Podesta emails and came to this conclusion:

“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him."

Putting the words "most likely" aside and the fact that those words imply a weak argument, the statement suggests that Putin was angry at Clinton back in 2011.  Yet, supposedly, the Russians didn't start hacking the DNC server until 4 years later in 2015.  This was followed by the release of those emails a year later during the late election cycle.

What doesn't make sense is that, if Putin truly wanted to damage Hillary Clinton, why wait 4 years to do so?  From everything we know about her private server, there was very little security and loads of information damaging to Hillary Clinton.  Also, it was operational since 2008.  An analysis by the Associated Press said the server was open to "low skilled hackers".  For Russia's first class hackers, Hillary's server would have been a cakewalk.  In addition, the exposure of the classified data in those emails and other State Department related emails would have done far more damage to Hillary Clinton, both politically and personally, than the peripheral data on the DNC server. Also, any one receiving an email had to know it wasn't from the State Department's server because her address was stupidly hdr22@clintonemail.com.  A simple domain name search by a trained hacker would have been able to locate that server's IP address and allow it to be hacked.

Personally, I think the CIA, FBI, and NSA's conclusion is flawed and probably political in nature.

References:

U.S. intelligence says Putin wanted to damage Clinton, help Trump: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/6/us-intelligence-says-putin-wanted-damage-clinton/

Revealed: Hillary's private server was open to 'low-skilled-hackers' who could take it over remotely because its 'amateur hour' operators ignored official warnings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3270758/Hillary-s-private-server-open-low-skilled-hackers-remotely-operators-ignored-official-warnings-vulnerable.html

What does the 22 in Hillary Clinton's private email account hdr22@clintonemail.com mean? https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-22-in-Hillary-Clintons-private-email-account-hdr22-clintonemail-com-mean

Why Clinton’s Private Email Server Was Such a Security Fail: https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

For Russia, U.S. Oil Production Is Doing More Harm Than Sanctions

One thing is sure, the Democrats hate oil companies; and they want you to hate them too.  This year they are demonizing the Koch Brothers. In the past, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies were the targets of their wrath.  Every time gasoline prices jumped significantly, the Democrats held hearings to publicly flog the oil company CEO's for manipulating prices so that they could fatten their already fat profits.

But, nothing ever came out of all those hearings. That's because, secretly, every Democrat wants high prices at the pump.  Only then will consumers shift to alternatives to oil or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles or drive less.

Barack Obama is no different.  Since coming to office, he has used EPA lawsuits -- most of which were found to be without merit -- to stop oil production and fracking operations in places like West Texas. He has blocked the Keystone pipeline project in order to restrict oil supplies. Following the BP Deep-Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf, he has effectively used that as an excuse to limit what had been a previously fast-growing and vast area of oil production.  At the same time, federal oil leases -- both for offshore and federal lands -- have been severely restricted by this President.  Lastly, he has attempted to use questionably endangered species like the Lesser Prairie Chicken and the Greater Sage Grouse to stop oil drilling and production in vasts swaths of the U.S.

But, despite all those efforts, and thanks to private and state oil drilling, America is set to be the world's largest oil production country by sometime next year.  And, we are all the beneficiaries because there is now a glut of oil and prices are falling; with lower prices at the gasoline pump to follow.

Even more interesting is the fact that lower oil prices, as a result of rising U.S. production, might be doing something to Russia that the President's own sanctions over the Ukraine haven't done.  That is, to severely hurt their economy.  Russia is heavily dependent on oil production and exports.  But, as the Russian Central Bank so noted, lower oil prices are threatening their economy. and, that comment was made when Brent Crude was at $98 a barrel.  Today, Brent is selling at about $86 and will probably fall even lower as world inventories continue to rise.

So if President Obama wanted to hurt Russia even more, he could approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Approve more federal leases and back off litigation and the EPA's abuse of the Endangered Species Act to restrict production.  However, given the political influence of the environmentalists and the Democrats, he would rather the Ukraine be handed over to Russia than increase U.S. oil production by one drop.

References:

Venezuela blames U.S for global oil price slump: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2014-10/17/c_133723506.htm

Massive Rise in Crude Oil Inventory Sends Prices Tumbling: http://247wallst.com/energy-economy/2014/10/08/massive-rise-in-crude-oil-inventory-sends-prices-tumbling/

U.S. to Be Top Oil Producer by 2015 on Shale, IEA Says: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

Russian Central Bank Fears Weak Oil Price Could Threaten Economy: https://www.google.com/search?q=Russian+Central+Bank+Fears+Weak+Oil+Price+Could+Threaten+Economy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Court backs Texas revolt against EPA's new greenhouse gas rules: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/05/court-texas-epa-greenhouse-gas

Oil and gas production on federal lands is in free fall under Obama: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/16/oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-in-free-fall-under-obama/

Save a Chicken, Drill a Well - Wall Street Journal: https://www.google.com/search?q=Save+a+Chicken%2C+Drill+a+Well+-+Wall+Street+Journal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Critics cry foul as feds place lesser prairie chicken on threatened species list: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/28/critics-cry-foul-as-feds-place-lesser-prairie-chicken-on-threatened-species/

EPA backs off on fracking contamination claims in Texas: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/01/epa-backs-off-on-fracking-contamination-claims-in-texas/

EPA’s Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat of Many: http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many

EPA drops action against Range Resources over Parker County water wells: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/30/3849362/epa-drops-action-against-range.html

Obama's Weak-Handedness In Foreign Policy Has Gotten Us Nowhere

When Obama took office he extended his hand to Iran under the assumption that they were only negatively responding to the heavy-handedness of the Bush Administration.  Now, more than 3 years later, Iran is still as much an antagonist as they were during the Bush presidency.  As result, our pussy-cat role towards them has been abandoned and Obama has had to, once again, resort to those same heavy-handed measures of the prior Administration.

Then, there's Russia.  We supposedly "reset" our relationship with that former Cold War foe.  In essence, we said we'd play nice and, in return, Obama expected Russia to be our "BFF".  But, friendship was nowhere to be found.  They haven't played nice on missile defense; even threatening to launch air strikes against any  system we would deploy in Europe.  Then, too, they've attempted to block us on every move against Iran and its nuclear program.  They fought us, too, on our move to support Libyan rebels and dethrone Gaddafi.  And, now, we find out that Russia is providing helicopters to Syria and Assad to trample the rebel, democracy uprising.

When Egypt successfully forced Hosni Mubarak to step down, Obama called it "a beginning" for democracy.  Well, in the year that has passed since then, Egyptians have voted for the anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood and, then, just recently, the military conducted a coup, of sorts, by dissolving the current parliament and by putting themselves back in charge.  So much for that "beginning".

Israel has suffered greatly under Obama.  That tiny state is now as close to serious war as it has ever been.  If Iran successfully develops a nuke, Israel realizes it could be in serious trouble.  As a result, they may be forced to take a preemptive strike against Iran.  The once-friendly Egypt is looking more like a hostile Islamic neighbor.  The U.N. and President Obama's support of the Palestinians and a Palestinian state, is creating an extremely awkward relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

And, let's not forget North Korea.  Upon taking office, the President had all but declared six-party talks with North Korea a failure.  Instead, he decided to reinstate the previously failed bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S.  Obama, once again, felt this up-close and personal negotiations would work with his guiding hand. Now, three years later, North Korea is still a nuclear power and, over time, has now developed nuclear delivery systems that could threaten the United States.

Lastly, there's that elephant in the room -- China, and a near trillion dollars in debt that we owe to that country.  The president-elect Obama promised change with China.  Change that would include better trade relations; China's support in negotiating with North Korea; freer human rights for all Chinese people; support of global warming initiatives; and, most importantly, convincing them to allow its currency to "float" in international trading so that U.S. products would be less expensive in China.  Of course, in typical fashion, China balked on these issues.  The once confident Obama seems as helpless as Bush when it comes to that country. 

When I see polling that gives the President high marks for foreign policy, I just have to laugh.  Things are no better today than they were under Bush.  If anything, foreign relations have only suffered. They've suffered because by Obama looks weak; and, no one ever wins in negotiations by looking weak.

Again, Obama Sides with Russia!

Even a high school football coach knows that any good-to-great football team has a balance of offense and defense. Without a good defense, some hot-shot-quarterbacked team might score a few points but is ultimately doomed to fail over the long term. The cheerleaders know this too. When their team doesn't have the ball, the drone is: "Defense! Defense! Defense!

So, here we go with another penny-wise/pound-foolish plan of Obama's, to abandon the missile defense system in Europe. All because this President seems to think that by showing some good faith, Russia will play nice and help with Iran.

The really simple question that Obama should have asked himself before he made this decision is: Why would Russia be so upset with our placement of a "defensive" weapon system in Europe? Gee? Do you think it might be upsetting some future plans for reestablishing the Soviet empire?

Putin is a product of the KGB and the golden days of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (the U.S.S.R). It doesn't take a mind reader to know that he wants to restore Russia to its former prominence as a World Power. Those missile defense systems are an absolute wall in reviving that dream.

Last year, Russia flexed its muscles by moving into the Republic of Georgia. Obama blinked by cautioning restraint on the part of "both" the aggressor, Russia, and the victim, Georgia. This was totally contradictory to any sound thought that should be coming from this country. You don't caution the weaker party unless you condone the aggression and you are siding with the aggressor. Now, he is once again, siding with that same aggressor, Russia, over the missile defense system.

You have to seriously wonder what is going on here with this kind of behavior.

For more on this, please read: "Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence"