The Politics of Naming a "Special Prosecutor" For Trump/Russia

Over the years, investigations into things like such as Watergate, 911, the JFK Assassination, Clinton/Lewinsky etc., have all been headed by a supposedly independent investigator. The titles of those investigations and others have ranged from Commissions, Independent Counsels, Special Counsels, and Special Prosecutors; all to do essentially the same thing.

It is interesting to me, that Democrats are now calling for a "Special Prosecutor" regarding the investigation of Russian meddling in our presidential election and possible collusion by Trump and/or his surrogates rather than calling for an Independent Counsel or a Special Counsel.  So why the words "Special Prosecutor"?  Well, it implies that a conclusion of wrong-doing has already been reached.  Here's the definition of a prosecutor: "a person, especially a public official, who institutes legal proceedings against someone."  Of course, the firing of Comey only helps solidify Trump's guilt in the minds of the Democrats.  Thus they feel, more than ever, a Special Prosecutor is needed.

It is all about the Democrats making the voting public believe Trump is already guilty by simply choosing the words that imply it.  Once again, its all about politics, since after months of FBI investigations, no Trump-collusion with the Russians has been found, stated or leaked.

References:

Senate Dems: Hey, Maybe We Won't Confirm a New FBI Director Until a Special Prosecutor is Appointed: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/05/15/senate-dems-hey-maybe-we-wont-confirm-a-new-fbi-director-until-a-special-prosecutor-is-appointed-n2326728

Definition: Prosecutor: https://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

CNN: The public really wants a special prosecutor for Russia investigation: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/donald-trump-russia/

Did the U.S. Hack Computers in 90 Countries?

Last Friday, hundreds of thousands of computers -- infected with ransomware -- demanded the equivalent of $300 be paid to regain access to the computers.  Everything from hospitals to FedEx were affected over 90 different countries.

Cyber experts claim that the ransomware attack was based on software that was developed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) because of "fingerprints" identified in the code for the hack.  Yet no one really believes that it was originated by the NSA and the U.S. government.  So, then, if it is possible to copy software leaving "fingerprints" behind revealing the source of the software, isn't it possible that the software left behind in the infected DNC server wasn't from the Russian government at all?  But only software that had been hijacked to make it appear as if it were Russian?   Something that Wikileaks claimed just last month.

References:

Hackers Hit Dozens of Countries Exploiting Stolen N.S.A. Tool: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/europe/uk-national-health-service-cyberattack.html?_r=0

Conspiracy theory: WikiLeaks CIA Dump Gives Russian Hacking Deniers the Perfect Ammo: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-dump-gives-russian-hacking-deniers-perfect-ammo/

WikiLeaks says CIA disguised hacking as Russian activity | Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html

Microsoft Claims Stolen U.S. Government Computer Code Fuels Cyberattack: https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-complains-state-hacking-tools-fuel-cyberattack-risks-1494803026

Cyber attack latest: Vladimir Putin blames US for hack as thousands more computers hit by ransomware: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/15/nhs-cyber-attack-latest-authorities-warn-day-chaos-ransomware/

Firing Comey Gave Democrats Fuel for the Russia/Trump Connection

Nearly a day doesn't go by that a Democratic politician or strategist doesn't remind Americans that Trump may have illegitimately been elected because of collusion with the Russians.  This is despite the fact that ongoing concurrent investigations in the House, Senate, and the FBI have not produced any evidence to support it

So, it was no wonder then, that when Trump fired FBI Director Comey, the Democrats automatically smelled a rat.  Immediately,  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded a special prosecutor under the assumption that Comey's dismissal was a direct result of his investigation of Russian interference in the election.  Therefore, the Russia/Trump controversy continues to have legs.

However, there is an obvious flaw in that thinking.  Comey being fired does not stop the Russia investigation. And unless Comey was extremely hands on and had nothing else to do, there is most likely some lead investigator at the FBI who is actually in charge of thet investigation.  That's the reality.

My problem with the Comey firing is why it took so long.  Trump should have let him go early into his presidency because of the way he -- not the Russians -- interfered in the election regarding  Hillary's email server. In addition, the way the firing was handled was a violation of every code of conduct for any executive.  You just don't fire someone by letter unless that person simply isn't available.  The proper thing to do is to have a face-to-face meeting in which the person being released receives a full understanding as to why he/she is being let go.  That was not the case, and it clearly shows an insensitivity on Trump's part that I find reprehensible.

References:

Pence Calls Comey Firing 'Right Decision' as Democrats Pounce: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/democrats-charge-comey-firing-nixonian-demand-special-prosecutor-n757121

Chuck Schumer calls for special prosecutor for Russia probe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/10/trump-takes-twitter-defend-comey-firing-decision/5ozYTKF0klYhBhmRiDkNjO/story.html

Comey Firing Was Inevitable--Surprise Is It Took So Long: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/09/james-comey-fired-donald-trump-fbi-director-column/101488186/

The "Flynn" Fiasco Leaves a Lot of Questions

Forced to resign as Trump's National Security Advisor, former Lieutenant General Flynn apparently had someone eavesdrop on a call he made to the Russian Ambassador, prior to Trump even taking office. Then, the details of that call were leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post.  So, this brings up a number of questions:

• Was it Flynn's phone or the Russian Ambassador's phone that was being tapped? Or both?
• If it was Flynn's phone that was being tapped, then why?
• Is there a "shadow government" at work within the Trump Administration that is out to undermine the activities of this President?  One that goes beyond the tapping of Flynn's phone?
• Then, there is the obvious question of who leaked the information.
• Because of all of the above, one has to wonder if loyalists to Obama or the Clinton's are behind this?

In my opinion, this is a serious issue that must be investigated; and not by Democrats alone.  

References:

Democrats call for an Investigation of Flynn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4222244/Democrats-call-investigation-Michael-Flynn.html

Obama’s Shadow Presidency Well-funded Organizing for Action promises to crack conservative skulls to halt the Trump agenda: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265808/obamas-shadow-presidency-matthew-vadum

Horror...Trump Could Lift Sanctions on Russia

When it was reported that Trump "might" lift sanctions on Russia, you would have thought that Lindsey Graham, John McCain, much of Congress, and most of the media had been told they only had weeks to live.  Actually, what Trump said is "If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody’s doing some really great things?".

Putting that aside, here's the truth about sanctions: They don't work!

In a book titled "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered", three researchers looked at 200 sanction sets from 1914 to 2009 between various countries.  Their research found that just 13 of those 200 sanction sets "really" worked.  Of the thirteen, 3 were threatened and were never imposed.  7 lasted one year or less.  Of the remaining three, one lasted for two years; and the remaining 2 only achieved results after four years.  Simply speaking, the longer that sanctions are in place, the odds of them working are greatly reduced.  Of course, that's assuming that they would work at all.

Something to think about as we now enter the third year of sanctions against Russia.  Maybe Trump can find a better "deal" to get Russia to budge on Crimea and Ukraine?

References:

Trump open to removing Russia sanctions: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/314323-trump-open-to-removing-russia-sanctions

13 times that economic sanctions really worked: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/04/28/13-times-that-economic-sanctions-really-worked/?utm_term=.38b745a101cc

January 10, 2017: McCain, Graham to unveil bipartisan Russia sanctions bill - POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-no-russia-sanctions-bill-233395

CIA: Russians Hacked the Election to Give Trump the Win

Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign email servers were hacked into by the Russians to help Trump win the election.  And, that Vladimir Putin had personally directed the hack.  This from an anonymous source that said a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed on this in a closed door session by the CIA.  But, the CIA also stressed that not all national security agencies agree on this.

So, once again, we're being fed a story from an anonymous source that can't be verified.  We don't even know what Senators were briefed.  In the era of "fake news"stories, this may just be another one. Before this latest story, the Washington Post did a hit-job on the Trump win on Thanksgiving by declaring that the Russians created "fake news" on hundreds of Internet sites in order to give Trump the win.  One has to wonder if the "Post" has an agenda here, and why they are the sole provocateur on these Russian/Trump stories.

My biggest problem is believing the whole concept of Putin wanting Trump to win. It doesn't pass the smell test.   I cannot imagine Putin preferring Trump because of all the ways in which Trump could hurt the Russian state.

First of all, Trump is a climate denier who believes that we should back off from restricting the usage of fossil fuels; especially oil.  For Russia, this is a problem since their economy is so dependent on oil.  Any increased production under a Trump presidency will lower the price and economically depress the Russian economy.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has promised to rebuild our military.  Does anyone really think Putin wants the U.S.military to get stronger and more advanced?  On top of that, Donald Trump is more likely to deploy a missile defense system in Europe.  Something that Putin does not want to happen.  Further, Trump has never once stated that he wouldn't put boots on the ground, and Hillary clearly stated that wouldn't happen in her administration. Also, Trump may ignore the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty signed by Obama without Senate approval as mandated by law.  Thus we could be on track to rebuild our nuclear weapons power.

Lastly, Trump's temperament is a great unknown with respect to how he would deal with any conflicts that occur between Russia and the U.S.   This could force Putin to give pause when attempting to take over another country or area such as Crimea. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton have long held the belief that Trump was the last person they wanted with his finger on the nuclear button.

What I'm more concerned about, is that this election could be totally discredited and Trump's win nullified.  What then?  Could Hillary sue in federal court and take the win away from Trump on the basis that he won unfairly?  Would the whole election process have to be rerun?  If so,  would Obama remain in office while that process was completed. That is certainly a possibility since he has ordered a completed intelligence review on his desk before he leaves office.  And, if the election is rerun, for sure, the voter turnout for the Democrats would be great.  This is certainly a mess that our founding fathers never anticipated as they drafted the Constitution.

References:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.f799ed76f51b

CIA Concludes Russia Interfered with U.S. Election to Help Trump: http://fortune.com/2016/12/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-with-u-s-election-to-help-trump/

CIA: Russia Interfered With U.S. Elections: Politicians and pundits are calling for further investigation into the matter: http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Oil, taxes — and big problems for Russia's economy - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/oil-taxes--and-big-problems-for-russias-economy.html

The Left is Still in Denial as to Why Hillary Lost

The political left and the left-wing media are still in disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  But, instead of looking inwards for answers, they continue to float the idea that "conspiracies" were responsible.

Just a few days ago, the New York Magazine reported that a group of  "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" believed that the loss was a result of hacked voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- citing irregularities such as lower vote counts where voting machines were used. Then in that same article, the confidence in their hacking theory is immediately tempered by this statement:

"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review."

Just last Friday, the Washington Post theorized that in fact a Russian propaganda effort threw the election; along with the hacking of emails from the Clinton camp and the Democratic National Committee.  However, as above, the veracity of that story was also weakened when the following was written:

"There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders."

The only problem with the above "speculation" is that team Clinton members never disavowed any of the hacked emails as not being "real".  All they ever said was that they were being released because Putin wants Trump to be President.  Hillary's campaign chief, John Podesta, even "suggests" that Trump had before-hand knowledge of the email hack and data dump in the last few weeks.  "Suggests" is not a proven fact, but Time.com thought the story was fit to print.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "fake news". The implication is that somehow, the political right is the primary "faker" of news stories intended to hurt Hillary Clinton.  Well, the above stories are only a few from the mainstream media that are solely based on speculation and not fact, in an effort to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe the agencies writing these types of stories should think about the fact that a lot of people may only read a paragraph or two of a long story and come to the conclusion the voting machines were hacked; not reading further to understand that this was simply an unproven assumption.  Obviously, "fake news" comes in all flavors.

References:

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

Clinton Refuses to Disavow Hacked Excerpts From Paid Speeches: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/clinton-refuses-to-disavow/2016/10/08/id/752349/

Hillary Clinton Adviser Suggests Donald Trump Campaign Knew About Hacked Emails: http://time.com/4528049/hillary-clinton-john-podesta-emails-hackers-russia/

Hillary's Disasterous New Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

One of the supposed accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was her negotiation of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia that was signed in 2011.  She personally touts this on the campaign trail. So, does her running mate Tim Kaine. Husband Bill, proudly and verbally pats her on the back for this good work.   Her campaign started running ads in early September that said “Hillary oversaw hard-nosed negotiations with the Russians for a new START treaty to greatly reduce our countries’ nuclear stockpiles."

Well, here's the truth.  Little noticed, on October 1, the State Department gave a report card on the New START treaty.  While both the U.S. and Russia were to maintain nuclear weapon stockpiles at or below 1,550 by 2018, Russia now has 1,796.  That's more than they had at the time the treaty was agreed to.  At the same time, the U.S. has taken our stockpiles from 1,800 to 1,367.

So, being "hard-nosed" equates to us rolling over and weakening our strategic position, as Russia ignores the ink on the treaty without paying a single penalty for building up arms.  And, don't forget, Hillary also worked on the Iran nuke deal.  She'll really make a tough president, alright!

References:

Clinton, Kaine go too far in touting a nuclear deal with Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/04/clinton-kaine-go-too-far-in-touting-a-nuclear-deal-with-russia/

Jake Tapper Video: Clinton Ad Misleads on Russian Nuclear Agreement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_rFK8QKchc

The Russian Nuclear Weapons Buildup and the Future of the New START Treaty: http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/11/02/the_russian_nuclear_weapons_buildup_110294.html

Russia’s Nuclear Surge: Putin Adding Nukes While Obama Cuts: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/07/russia-s-nuclear-surge-putin-adding-nukes-while-obama-cuts.html

The Arms Race Begins In The Middle East

Following the Iran nuke deal, President Obama said "This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure...no deal means the chance of more war in the Middle East".

Well, if that was true, why is Obama now providing $3 billion in military aid to Israel and preparing to provide a missile defense system to Saudi Arabia; and perhaps others in the region?  At the same time Russia has inked a deal with Iran to provide them with a missile defense system.

These two actions by the U.S. and Russia show that war is being assumed as a potential reality.  This isn't peace.  I would suspect its only a matter of time before Saudis move to get their own nukes and their own ballistic missiles in order to have retaliatory capability against Iran. Others in the Middle East are sure to follow.  Also, it has long been known that Israel already has nukes.  Will they now build or buy their own ballistic missiles?  Expect everyone in the neighborhood to beef up their armies and conventional weapons capabilities.

The world is now...safer? More secure?

References:

Iran Nuclear Deal: President Obama Says Deal Makes World 'Safer and More Secure': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-president-obama-deliver-statement-historic-accord-n391646

U.S. to help Arab states to develop ballistic missile defense capability: http://missilethreat.com/u-s-to-help-arab-states-to-develop-ballistic-missile-defense-capability/

Russia Confirms Sale of S-300 Missile Systems To Iran: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/05/26/russia-confirms-sale-missile-systems-iran/27970269/

Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-own-nuclear-options-iran-deal-131228648.html

Nuclear weapons and Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Iran Nuclear Pact Could Spark Buildup Of Conventional Weapons: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/15/423101307/iran-nuclear-pact-could-spark-buildup-of-conventional-weapons 

The Complete Failure of the Obama Doctrine

On the Sunday following President Obama's announced nuke deal with Iran, Thomas Friedman -- liberal op-ed columnist  and pseudo intellectual for the New York Times -- sat down with the President to discuss the deal.  As part of the interview, Friedman gave props to  Obama for "knocking down walls" that have existed for years in the countries of Burma, Cuba, and now, Iran.  Friedman called the President's actions towards these countries the "Obama Doctrine" which is to engage rather than isolate adversaries with sanctions.  The only problem with this so-called Doctrine is that it is inconsistently applied.

For, example, the President claimed sanctions haven't worked for 60 years in dealing with Cuba.  They also haven't deterred Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.  Yet, we still apply sanctions against North Korea, and most recently, Obama applied sanctions against Russia over Crimea and the Ukraine.  If sanctions don't work, why apply them to Russia, and why keep them against more than two dozen other countries?

Then, there's the inconsistencies against Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, and Crimea.  In Libya, we led from behind by forming a coalition to overthrow Gaddafi.  And, Gaddafi was overthrown.  But, in the case of Syria, we did nothing to help the free-Syria rebels oust the tyrant Bashar al-Assad.  Similarly, in the case of Crimea and the Ukraine, we did nothing to assist those who were fighting the Russian-backed rebels.

Also, where there has been engagement, how has that worked?

Engagement with Russia obviously didn't work.   In 2009, Obama (vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton) "reset" relations with Russia.  We even sweetened the relationship by scraping our European missile defense system that had been seen as a threat to Russia's ability to launch an attack on Europe.  So, what did all this "honey" buy us.  Nothing.  Russia has used our less-aggressive green light to retake Crimea and, eventually, all of the Ukraine. Then, too, Russia has been busy hacking our White House and State Department computers. Things between our two countries haven't been this cold since the war.  And, now, Russia is out to protect Iran from any attack over it's nuke program, by installing a sophisticated ground-to-air missile defense system.

In Libya, we and our coalition overthrew Gaddafi, but, since then we've had to high-tail-it out of the country because the people we freed weren't really our friends.  Then, in Egypt, Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood.  Unfortunately, the entire country didn't and the Muslim Brotherhood officials that won elections were ousted by a military coup to protect the nation.  It seems like the Obama Doctrine is all about betting on the wrong horse.

Given the past spoiled fruits of the Obama Doctrine, it is hard to believe that our relationship with Cuba and Iran will turn out any better. Already, Cuba is demanding (not asking) for the return of Guantanamo Bay and financial reparations for the last 60 years of sanctions. The "or else" on that demand is anyone's guess.  Then, too, besides just recently calling for "Death to America", the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran is demanding immediate removal of all U.N. sanctions or their is no deal.  So, now, the Obama Doctrine might be faced with "no engagement" on that one. At the same time, while we are feeding the hand of Iran over a nuke deal, they are busily overthrowing any remnants of the government of Yemen which the President claimed was our best ally against radical Islam.

Essentially, in the wake of the Obama Doctrine, there has been nothing but failure after failure.  The fact that the Middle East is on the precipice of an all-out Shia versus Sunni war is an example of how a carrot-only-without-a-stick philosophy is not only wrong but just plain stupid.  However, media types on the left like Friedman just can't see it.  Simply, the world will not be a better place until Obama and the Obama Doctrine leave the world stage in 2016.

References:

Friedman:  Iran and the Obama Doctrine: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doctrine-and-iran-interview.html

Obama Doctrine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know: http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/obama-foreign-policy-doctrine-iran-nuclear-agreement-deal-change-interview-thomas-friedman-new-york-times-video/

U.S. Sanctions Programs: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx

How the Russian 'Reset' Explains Obama's Foreign Policy: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/16/how-the-russian-reset-explains-obamas-foreign-policy/

Obama scraps Bush missile-defense plan - ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-scraps-bush-missile-defense-plan/story?id=8604357

White House hacking reports highlight digital cold war between US, Russia: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0410/White-House-hacking-reports-highlight-digital-cold-war-between-US-Russia

Russia to supply Iran with missile defence system: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/russia-supply-iran-sophisticated-air-defence-system-150413180038692.html

US shuts down Tripoli embassy and evacuates staff in Libya: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-closes-down-embassy-and-evacuates-staff-in-libyas-capital-tripoli-9630561.html

New York Times:  Working With the Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/roger-cohen-working-with-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

Army Ousts Egypt's President; Morsi Is Taken Into Military Custody: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/egypt.html

Obama Tonight: Yemen and Somalia Are Models of Success: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-tonight-yemen-and-somalia-are-models-success_804728.html

pb

The Cuba Deal: Another One of Obama's One-Sided Negotiations

In March 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama told Iran:

"if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us"

Despite the fact that Iran has never unclenched its fist by continuing its nuclear weapons program; and, by continuing the development of long range missiles; and by continuing to undermine infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan by arming anti-government rebels; we stupidly, and one-sidedly, extended our hand by removing sanctions against them.  Even though the removal of such sanctions has produced  zero slowdown in their nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Then there was our "reset" with Russia in 2009 and our one-sided gifts to Putin such as agreeing not to put missile defense systems in Europe.  Where did that get us?  Relations with Russia are now almost as cold as they were throughout the Cold War.

Also, Obama announced a climate change deal with China in 2014.  This, too, was another one-sided effort where we specifically set targets, while China, somewhat, agreed to goals.  Goals with holes wide enough to drive a train through.  In fact, the Chinese have declared that their carbon emission reduction programs under this agreement will not be subject to any measurable scrutiny.  In other words, just believe us when we say we are meeting goals.

So, now, we learn about another one-sided deal.  This time with Cuba.

In exchange for one American held in Cuba for 5 years, we gave up 3 highly-valued, convicted Cuban spies.  We agreed to open an Embassy in Cuba.  We will review dropping the U.S. label of Cuba as a  state sponsor of terrorism, and there will be an easing of economic sanctions and a removal of a 54-year embargo on Cuban products such as cigars.

So, what did we get in exchange?

Nothing. No promises of better treatment of the Cuban people. No promise for democracy. No freedom of press or expression. No lifting of travel restrictions on Cubans wanting to visit the U.S. and, no agreement to stop international sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing!

Once again, Present Obama has proven to be a failed negotiator.  He can't negotiate with Congress and certainly can't negotiate with our international enemies.  Instead, he's more like a game show host who won't just give you what's behind door number three, he'll throw in 1 and 2 as well.

What's really interesting about Cuba is that they have maintained a cozy relationship with both Russia and Iran.  The two other countries that Obama showered with gifts and got nothing in return.

One last thing. Obama claims that we need to normalize relations with Cuba because 54 years of isolation hasn't worked.  Really?  What about nearly 70 years of isolation with North Korea?  Are we now expected to normalize relations with them just because the clock ran out? By the way. Cuba is also a close trading partner with North Korea.  It is surprising that a President who uses sanctions against Russia now admits sanctions haven't worked against Cuba.  They obviously haven't worked against North Korea either.  Then, why ever use them?

References:

Obama offers Iran 'new beginning': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7954211.stm

United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/very-bad-deal-israeli-pm-netanyahu-lashes-out-over-wests-possible-nuke-deal-with-iran/

Obama Lifts Sanctions, Iranians Win, Regime Loses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/obama-iran-sanctions_b_3358930.html

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-extended-vienna

Obama Administration Caves to Putin on Missile Shield:   http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-missile-shield-russia/2013/03/17/id/495084/

Obama's One-Sided "Reset" With Russia | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/obamas_one-sided_reset_with_russia_118387.html

Obama's Epic Climate Change Deal With China Falls Apart: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120814-729590-obama-taken-by-chinas-president-xi-jinping-in-signing-phony-climate-deal.htm

Obama hails 'new chapter' in US-Cuba ties: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30516740

Obama: Isolating Cuba hasn't worked: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/obama-cuba-castro-relations/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Cuba–Iran relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Iran_relations

Cuba-Russia relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Cuban relations with North Korea - The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/12/cuban-relations-north-korea 

China–Cuba relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cuba_relations

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

Three Reasons Why The Downing Of MH17 Will Go Unpunished

First of all, the Ukrainian government should be leading the charge against the separatists for the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH17.  However, their army is in no position to take any military action.  They can't even secure the crash site. While the separatists are receiving weapons and training from Russia, the Ukrainian army is receiving no such support from either NATO/Europe or the United States.  To date, the U.S. has only supplied peripheral support such as sleeping bags, some medical supplies, meals-ready-to-eat, and night vision goggles.  Obama will never supply weapons because he is, first and foremost, an anti-war President.  To supply the Ukraine, as silly as it seems, would be to promote war in that country.  This is the reason he hasn't provided the non-ISIS rebels with weapons in their fight against Bashar al-Assad.

Secondly, Europe and NATO won't act to assist the Ukrainian government because, to do so, might cause Putin to take economic action against Europe by cutting off oil and gas supplies.  Russia supplies nearly 40% of their natural gas and a third of its total oil requirements.

Finally, The United Nations and its Security Council are impotent in their ability to take action against either Russia or the Ukrainian separatists because Russia (Putin) has veto power and that power would effectively kill any resolutions or military actions that may be proposed by other members of the Council.

The bottom line is that Putin is in the catbird seat when it comes to the Ukraine.  He knows that Obama and the Europeans won't act against him and his goal of reconstituting the U.S.S.R.  Ultimately, he will annex the Ukraine; just as he was able to annex Crimea.  Unless, the world wakes up and takes decisive actions, his ambitions of a stronger and larger Russian superpower will resurface.
Reference:

Russia in the European energy sector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector

Russia's Foolish Attempts To Foil Our Space Program

On May 13, Dmitry Rogozin, the bureaucrat who leads Russia's defense industry, announced two retaliatory actions against the U.S. in response to the sanctions being placed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis.  First, Russia will no longer allow Americans to ride on their rockets in order to gain access to the International Space Station (ISS) after 2020.  Secondly, effective immediately, Russia will stop selling their RD-180 and NK-33 rocket engines to American companies which are currently being used to launch commercial and military satellites.

Certainly, this announcement seems to spell the end of our involvement in the International Space Station after 2020 because, since the ending of our Space Shuttle program in 2011, the U.S. has had no manned space capability.  This is a result of Obama killing Shuttle replacement as a budget cutting effort in 2010.  In actuality, America is scheduled to return to manned low-earth orbit missions in 2017 in a NASA program called Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

Unlike the original replacement program, which would have been fully NASA funded and controlled, the CCP is intended to be more of a civilian based system.   The program has two crew vehicles: a CST-100 capsule and the Dream Chaser space plane.  In terms of launch vehicles, both crew vehicles are capable of being launched by either the Atlas V, Delta IV, or the Falcon 9 rockets.  Of those, only the Atlas V rocket uses the embargoed Russian engines. Even so, the makers of Atlas V still have enough stockpiled Russian engines to keep that vehicle operating for another two years.  Beyond that, I am quite sure that the Atlas V will be retrofitted with U.S. made engines; once the Russian supplies are depleted.

In essence, Russia's attempts at retaliation are quite foolish.  My guess is that Putin cooked this whole thing up for public consumption in mother Russia.  This way, he is seen as a strong leader,  capable of taking strong actions against Obama and his sanctions.

References:

Russia casts doubt on US' future with the ISS over Ukraine sanctions: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/13/russia-casts-doubt-on-us-future-with-iss-over-ukraine-sanctions/

NASA's Commercial Crew Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

CST-100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100

Dream Chaser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

ATLAS V Rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

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.

The Most Disturbing Thing About Obama's "Flexability" Statement on Missile Defense

One thing we know about Barack Obama is that he desperately believes the U.S. and Russia should stand down on the number of nuclear weapons that each possesses. So, yesterday, when Barack Obama was overheard telling the Russian President that he would have more flexibility on missile defense after he's reelected, he raised numerous questions regarding the security of this nation in an Obama second term.

For many on the right, that statement by our President just reinforced the real fear that a second-term Obama may hand over our secret missile defense technology to the Russians in some kind of false belief that this action would allow them to build there own missile defense system and, in so doing, make both countries "equally" defensible against a nuclear attack from the other. It is assumed that if that happened, both country's stockpiles of nuclear weapons would become useless; logically leading to a mutual and complete movement towards disarmament.

But, to me and many others on the right, this action would be like giving an art thief the details of all the security systems at the Louvre. Thus giving the thief the ability to rob the place blind. For the Russians, it would mean that they could glean any weaknesses in our missile defense systems. From this, they would be able to build a nuclear strike capability that could theoretically render our missile defense system blind. And, for the very same reason, it is only logical that the Russians wouldn't actually build a missile defense system that we fully understood.

I just believe that Obama's push for nuclear arms reduction between the Russians and ourselves is a failure to understand that the nuclear cat is already out of the bag. It really doesn't matter if the Russians have 10,000 nuclear weapons or less than 500. As few as 50 strategically-targeted strikes could literally bring America to its knees. Our focus should be on those nations who hate us--such as North Korea or Iran--who are more likely than the Russians to launch an attack against us or our allies.

Obama Has An Etch-a-Sketch, Too

In an A.M. meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Korea, President Obama was overheard saying this about missile defense: "After my election I have more flexibility." Oh, really? What other "new" or radical plans does our dear President have for his second term? Apparently, he feels that he has all to gain and nothing to lose after he's reelected. God help us if he is elected for a second term and, somehow, manages to regain control of both Houses of Congress!

Obama's Fairy Tale: The United Nations

Wednesday's assemblage of many of the world's leaders at the United Nations was truly a spectacle to behold. On one stage, you had some of the biggest despots of the modern world -- like Ahamdinejad and Khadafy -- and, at the same time, many leaders of the free-world such as Barack Obama. All were competing "equally" for the ears of the General Assembly. What a display of harmony.

I was especially impressed when Obama spoke these words as part of his speech:

"No nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold..."

Certainly, these are noble ambitions. But, in terms of practicality, especially when it comes to the United Nations, those words are naive.

All you have to do is look at the United Nation's Security Council to know that Obama's words were flights of pure fancy and a complete fairy tale.

Among all the nations in the world, there are just a chosen few who have all the power. These are the nations who have been elevated above all others. These are the permanent members of the Security Council. And, contrary to Obama's fantasy world, these 5 countries --- Russia, China, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and United States --- hold veto power above all others.

This is why the United Nations is so benign. When push comes to shove over the need to punish a nation for being exceptionally bad, one of these permanent member countries will always play their veto card and nothing will get done. Iran is always being protected by Russia's veto power. North Korea thwarts punishment by hiding behind China and their veto. Hugo Chavez and Venezuela have Russia as their shield. And, so it goes.

If you are a bad guy in the world of nations, all you have to do is link up economically with one of the permanent members. During the run-up to the Iraq war, it was Germany, France, and Russia who threatened to veto if actions were two harsh or if war was to be contemplated against Iraq. Each had oil, arms, and other trading concerns with Iraq and it came down to protecting their self interests. That's the real reason that America had to go it alone in Iraq.

The U.N. is a hypocritical organization. The exposed fraud regarding Iraq's "Oil for Food Program" just proves how corrupt this organization is and can be. Contrary to Obama's words, at the U.N. it's all about "who you know." Like any other political organization, you have power, corruption, and greed. For Obama to say that "no one nation should dominate another" and "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed" is a complete antithesis of what the U.N. is all about. The United Nations is literally a "world order" that places a select few countries above all others.

That is why Obama's words are so hollow and nothing more than a fairy tale. A fairy tale that only a fool or a liberal could believe in.

Iran Is No Long-Range Ballistic Missile Threat?

Obama's abandonment of the Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe has caused many a military analyst to say they smell a rat. For sure, it has our allies in Eastern Europe upset as noted in this news story: "Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal".

Just last April, Obama gave this speech in Prague:



The logic "now" being used by Obama for eliminating the Missile Defense Shield in Europe just doesn't add up with Obama's words in that Prague speech or with what we already know about Iran's nuke/missile programs.

First, the Obama Administration seems to say that the recent intelligence information has concluded that Iran won't have long-range missile capability for some time. However, that does not square with the fact that, in 2008, Iran launched a dummy satellite into space by using what could only be considered a warhead-capable long-range delivery vehicle (Click to See Full Story: "Iran sparks US concern with satellite rocket launch") .

Secondly, they say that if Iran is shown to have developed long-range capability, they can always restart the program. However, it takes years to build and go operational with any long-range missile defense system. So, to stop now, just puts us well behind the curve. If we wait for the day that we find out that Iran has achieved the capability, it may take many years of exposed danger before any system becomes operational.

Gates reassessment of Missile Defense is him just being a "yes man" to something that Obama had in mind for years. This is evident from an Obama campaign pledge of just 2 years ago:



Gates is just conforming to what the naive Obama had planned to do all along; and, he is not really informing Obama of the facts. Obama has always had this fairy tale in his mind that he can "talk" Russia into standing down on nuclear weapons and that he can convince both Iran and North Korea to come to a kumbaya reversal in their evil ways and abandon their nuke programs. Like a lot of liberals, Obama seems to believe that there are no bad people in the world -- only people that are pushed into being bad. That silliness is like thinking that you can take every cop off our city streets and all the criminals will just lay down their arms and stop being their little criminal selves.

How naive! How so Jimmy Carter!

One last comment. The two videos (above) and the recent abandonment of missile defense clearly exposes why Obama is losing public trust on a number of fronts. Like this flip-flop on missile defense, he has flipped, just as notably, on the original intent of the Stimulus and on many aspects of his health care reform plan. More and more, people are seeing that they can't trust anything this guy ever says or promises.

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"