YES, THERE WAS COLLUSION IN RUSSIA INVESTIGATION -----
BETWEEN CIA CHIEF. BRENNAN AND THE FBI--
The Democrats have been slavering at the mouth in anticipation of evidence to support the "collusion with Russia" charge they have tried so desperately to level at the President and his new administration. Their wishes have been stifled. After nearly a year of intense investigations, leaks from "sources" leading to straw-graspings, hysterical charges, phony stories, innuendo touted as factual journalism, and kitting together unrelated circumstantial facts...but no evidence of ties to Russian activists or evidence of collusion has come to light.
However, today, the Washington Times's Rowan Scarborough, (Monday, May 29, 2017) reported evidence of collusion ---but not of the Trump team. This concerted action between parties took place between the Obama's CIA and FBI with the express purpose of affecting the outcome of the 2016 election.
In response to a series of pointed questions by Congressman Goudy to the former CIA Director John O Brennan, an Obama appointee and protege, revealed that Brennan began domestic spying (illegal for the CIA ) on the Trump team way back in July of 2016. As if he didn't have more serious foreign problems to spend time on during the Obama Administration. But rather than focus on the nation's overseas foes...Mr. Brennan chose to wield the CIA's massive budget, expertise, power and organization designed to ferret out our foreign enemies abroad, instead he directed it to illegally pry into the private affairs of American citizens. He used this power to spy on the incoming Trump team as they went about their legitimate business of the people. Then he nefariously passed that information to the FBI (with notes suggesting impropriety) to be used to undermine the Republican candidate in the election....Mr. Trump. According to Brennan's own testimony, put into the public record during the May 23 hearings, the former CIA Director admitted spying on Trump and his team prior to the election, then passing on that information to the FBI headed then by Mr. James Comey.
This sinister act continues to haunt and weaken the nation and the White House. The false claims undermine the legitimacy of our duly elected President, frustrate the will of the 63 million Americans---who placed their ballot for Mr Trump. It weakens the democratic processes which insures the peaceful transfer of power and the concept that it is only the people who have to power to decide who their leaders will be. The Brennan's, Comey's and Obamas, have no right to use the investigative powers of the State (designed to protect us from foreign enemies) against our our citizens and citizen-candidates for office.
The acts of these misguided individuals are an illegal usurpation of power. They impact the 4th Amendment rights of those American citizens spied upon, and should be vigorously prosecuted by the Congress.
Thus the only acts of illegal collusion that have been revealed to date after nearly a full year of intense investigation, are those of hold over Obama Democrats who illegally used the power of the state to spy on their political enemies.
These are the real enemies of Democracy.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Sunday, May 28, 2017
KUSHNER:NO SCANDAL, NO CRIME, NO STORY,
FAKE NEWS: JARED KUSHNER "SCANDAL"
NO SCANDAL, NO CRIME, NO STORY
TYRANNY FROM WITHIN: MEDIA ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE POWER OF THE BALLOT BOX
Today, President Trump returns to the Oval Office after what was a very successful foreign trip. On this date in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and the New York Times so called "journalists" are sharpening their knives and oiling their typewriters in the expectation of creatively knitting together more unconnected and innocent facts, gossip, and innuendo, into blaring sensational headlines about Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law. These so called editors and journalists have taken up the practices and joined the ranks of the supermarket tabloids like the compact and colorful papers whose gossipy headline grab our attention while we wait on a supermarket line--the National Enquirer, National Examiner. But unlike these "gossip and astrology rags" which have no other motive but to entertain, titilate and sell more papers, the establishment "broad sheets" our so-called "real newspapers" are not just looking to increase readership, they are motivated by a dangerous political agenda--to delegitimize and undermine our democratically elected President Trump. These are actions which can hurt us all, and undermine the very footings of our democracy. It is a tyranny from within.
What these misguided journalists fail to understand is that the Founders of this democracy were driven to enshrine in our Constitution the principle that the POWER TO GOVERN LIES WITH THE PEOPLE; notwith burnt out, left-over politicians, or hangers-on from the last administration; not with the secret agents of the spy networks who seem to work for themselves; not the establishment wonks of the past, not the hierarchy of the political parties--or the secretive "deep state". The power of government is derived only from the ballot box and the people's choice. Mr. Trump has been chosen. He wields the scepter of the people and is in power now. If you do not like his policies, elect someone else. But these hubristic individuals of the media--who seem to think they know better or have the right to ignore the will of 63 million voting Americans---they act to undermine the Constitution that protects us all from tyranny. They promote a tyranny from within, from the deep state, the establishment, and the media which propagandize for it. This danger from within is as dangerous, or more so than the tyrants we fear from beyond our shores.
So let us examine what these "tabloid, gossip mongers", titilators and purveyors of false news are trying to sell us as the try to undermine our government. Their headlines blare out that Jared Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" to the Russians. That sounds sinister does it not? Well all Presidents have "back channels". President Obama certainly had a back channel to the Iranians to execute the infamous Iranian deal and arrange how to send all that cash. He had one with the North Koreans too. President Reagan had back channels to the Soviets. Mr. Kushner's job as a member of the President-elect's team during the transition was to establish communications with foreign leaders. It was perfectly justified, natural, and essential for him to be speaking to many foreign leaders on behalf of the President. No illegality here. No laws broken. No story. Furthermore, President Trump made it clear he was interested in re establishing better relations with the Russians, prior to the election. This was one of the "planks" he campaigned on. He, unlike many others who occupied his office seems to take these promises seriously. The people who voted for him were aware of his intentions. There is no crime here. That Mr. Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" with the Russians is perfectly logical, and legitimate.
However, here is how this "fake news" Jared Kushner story arose. When the old Obama government--was being replaced with a new Trump government--those who still held remnants of power chose to try to undermine the manifest choice of the people.
The policy of making an opening to the Russians to improver relations (after the Clinton-Obama debacle) was certainly not one of the Obama administration's goals. The hold-over spy chiefs, Obama's on-the-way-out department heads and the establishment types of both parties were opposed to and did not agree with these new policies. These "hold over" members of government and the deep state, illegally used the power of the state to spy on the Trump transition team, and then conspired to undermine policies THEY DISAGREED WITH. But they had no right to act on these disagreements because the people had spoken. Mr. Obama and his protege candidate Hillary Clinton and their policies were rejected in the last election. After the election, power had passed to the Trump team. But these hold-over officials ignored the dictates of democracy and the Constitution. Then compounding one broken law with another they ILLEGALLY LEAKED THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. The act of illicit spying on Americans and leaking secret information, are and remain the ONLY ILLEGALITIES IN THIS STORY.
The people have spoken. Let us get on with governing. Stop the self flagellation bloodletting, and self mutilation. We are one people, one nation. We must begin to heal and work together..or we all fall together.
rveyors of false news are trying to sell us as the try to undermine our government. They blare out that Jared Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" to the Russians. That sounds sinister does it not? Well all Presidents have back channels. President Obama had a back channel to the Iranians and to the North Koreans. President Reagan had back channels to the Soviets. Mr. Kushner's job as a member of the President-elect's team during the transition was to establish communications with foreign leaders. It was perfectly justified, natural, and essential for him to be speaking to many foreign leaders on behalf of the President. No illegality here. No laws broken. No story. Furthermore, President Trump made it clear he was interested in re establishing better relations with the Russians, prior to the election. This was one of the "planks" he campaigned on. He, unlike many others who occupied his office seems to take these promises seriously. The people who voted for him were aware of his intentions. There is no crime here. That Mr. Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" with the Russians is perfectly logical, and legitimate.
However, here is how this "fake news" Jared Kushner story arose. When the old Obama government--was being replaced with a new Trump government--those who still held remnants of power chose to try to undermine the manifest choice of the people.
The policy of making an opening to the Russians to improve relations (after the Clinton-Obama debacle) was certainly not one of the Obama administration's goals. The hold-over spy-chiefs, Obama's on-the-way-out department heads, and the establishment types of both parties were opposed to and did not agree with these new policies. The result was that "hold over" members of government and the "deep state", illegally used their power to spy on the Trump transition team, and then conspired to undermine policies THEY DISAGREED WITH. But they had no right to act on these disagreements because the people had spoken. Mr. Obama and his protege candidate Hillary Clinton and their policies were rejected in the last election. After the election, power had passed to the Trump team. But these hold-over officials ignored the dictates of democracy and the Constitution. Then compounding one broken law with another they ILLEGALLY LEAKED THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. The act of ILLICIT SPYING on Americans and LEAKING secret information, are and remain the ONLY ILLEGALITIES IN THIS STORY.
The people have spoken. Let us get on with governing. Stop the self-flagellation, bloodletting, and self-mutilation. We are one people, one nation. We must begin to heal and work together..or we all fall together.
NO SCANDAL, NO CRIME, NO STORY
TYRANNY FROM WITHIN: MEDIA ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE POWER OF THE BALLOT BOX
Today, President Trump returns to the Oval Office after what was a very successful foreign trip. On this date in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and the New York Times so called "journalists" are sharpening their knives and oiling their typewriters in the expectation of creatively knitting together more unconnected and innocent facts, gossip, and innuendo, into blaring sensational headlines about Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law. These so called editors and journalists have taken up the practices and joined the ranks of the supermarket tabloids like the compact and colorful papers whose gossipy headline grab our attention while we wait on a supermarket line--the National Enquirer, National Examiner. But unlike these "gossip and astrology rags" which have no other motive but to entertain, titilate and sell more papers, the establishment "broad sheets" our so-called "real newspapers" are not just looking to increase readership, they are motivated by a dangerous political agenda--to delegitimize and undermine our democratically elected President Trump. These are actions which can hurt us all, and undermine the very footings of our democracy. It is a tyranny from within.
What these misguided journalists fail to understand is that the Founders of this democracy were driven to enshrine in our Constitution the principle that the POWER TO GOVERN LIES WITH THE PEOPLE; notwith burnt out, left-over politicians, or hangers-on from the last administration; not with the secret agents of the spy networks who seem to work for themselves; not the establishment wonks of the past, not the hierarchy of the political parties--or the secretive "deep state". The power of government is derived only from the ballot box and the people's choice. Mr. Trump has been chosen. He wields the scepter of the people and is in power now. If you do not like his policies, elect someone else. But these hubristic individuals of the media--who seem to think they know better or have the right to ignore the will of 63 million voting Americans---they act to undermine the Constitution that protects us all from tyranny. They promote a tyranny from within, from the deep state, the establishment, and the media which propagandize for it. This danger from within is as dangerous, or more so than the tyrants we fear from beyond our shores.
So let us examine what these "tabloid, gossip mongers", titilators and purveyors of false news are trying to sell us as the try to undermine our government. Their headlines blare out that Jared Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" to the Russians. That sounds sinister does it not? Well all Presidents have "back channels". President Obama certainly had a back channel to the Iranians to execute the infamous Iranian deal and arrange how to send all that cash. He had one with the North Koreans too. President Reagan had back channels to the Soviets. Mr. Kushner's job as a member of the President-elect's team during the transition was to establish communications with foreign leaders. It was perfectly justified, natural, and essential for him to be speaking to many foreign leaders on behalf of the President. No illegality here. No laws broken. No story. Furthermore, President Trump made it clear he was interested in re establishing better relations with the Russians, prior to the election. This was one of the "planks" he campaigned on. He, unlike many others who occupied his office seems to take these promises seriously. The people who voted for him were aware of his intentions. There is no crime here. That Mr. Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" with the Russians is perfectly logical, and legitimate.
However, here is how this "fake news" Jared Kushner story arose. When the old Obama government--was being replaced with a new Trump government--those who still held remnants of power chose to try to undermine the manifest choice of the people.
The policy of making an opening to the Russians to improver relations (after the Clinton-Obama debacle) was certainly not one of the Obama administration's goals. The hold-over spy chiefs, Obama's on-the-way-out department heads and the establishment types of both parties were opposed to and did not agree with these new policies. These "hold over" members of government and the deep state, illegally used the power of the state to spy on the Trump transition team, and then conspired to undermine policies THEY DISAGREED WITH. But they had no right to act on these disagreements because the people had spoken. Mr. Obama and his protege candidate Hillary Clinton and their policies were rejected in the last election. After the election, power had passed to the Trump team. But these hold-over officials ignored the dictates of democracy and the Constitution. Then compounding one broken law with another they ILLEGALLY LEAKED THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. The act of illicit spying on Americans and leaking secret information, are and remain the ONLY ILLEGALITIES IN THIS STORY.
The people have spoken. Let us get on with governing. Stop the self flagellation bloodletting, and self mutilation. We are one people, one nation. We must begin to heal and work together..or we all fall together.
rveyors of false news are trying to sell us as the try to undermine our government. They blare out that Jared Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" to the Russians. That sounds sinister does it not? Well all Presidents have back channels. President Obama had a back channel to the Iranians and to the North Koreans. President Reagan had back channels to the Soviets. Mr. Kushner's job as a member of the President-elect's team during the transition was to establish communications with foreign leaders. It was perfectly justified, natural, and essential for him to be speaking to many foreign leaders on behalf of the President. No illegality here. No laws broken. No story. Furthermore, President Trump made it clear he was interested in re establishing better relations with the Russians, prior to the election. This was one of the "planks" he campaigned on. He, unlike many others who occupied his office seems to take these promises seriously. The people who voted for him were aware of his intentions. There is no crime here. That Mr. Kushner was attempting to establish a "back channel" with the Russians is perfectly logical, and legitimate.
However, here is how this "fake news" Jared Kushner story arose. When the old Obama government--was being replaced with a new Trump government--those who still held remnants of power chose to try to undermine the manifest choice of the people.
The policy of making an opening to the Russians to improve relations (after the Clinton-Obama debacle) was certainly not one of the Obama administration's goals. The hold-over spy-chiefs, Obama's on-the-way-out department heads, and the establishment types of both parties were opposed to and did not agree with these new policies. The result was that "hold over" members of government and the "deep state", illegally used their power to spy on the Trump transition team, and then conspired to undermine policies THEY DISAGREED WITH. But they had no right to act on these disagreements because the people had spoken. Mr. Obama and his protege candidate Hillary Clinton and their policies were rejected in the last election. After the election, power had passed to the Trump team. But these hold-over officials ignored the dictates of democracy and the Constitution. Then compounding one broken law with another they ILLEGALLY LEAKED THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. The act of ILLICIT SPYING on Americans and LEAKING secret information, are and remain the ONLY ILLEGALITIES IN THIS STORY.
The people have spoken. Let us get on with governing. Stop the self-flagellation, bloodletting, and self-mutilation. We are one people, one nation. We must begin to heal and work together..or we all fall together.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
TRUMP ABROAD--STANDS UP FOR AMERICA--ITS ABOUT TIME
TRUMP DOES NOT ENDORSE ARTICLE 5 (THE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE)
URGES NATO MEMBERS TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
TRUMP IS RIGHT AND SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR HIS STANCE
The Washington Post, PBS and the rest of the main stream media can find nothing positive to say concerning Trump's interaction with the snooty gaggle of NATO nations he met in Sicily. The MSM media snigger that he "didn't understand" the NATO relationship.. They chide him for being rude to the Montenegro Ambassador. They ridicule him for squeezing the French President's hand too tight when they met. Their sensibilities were offended when he brow beat the whole group for not living up to their financial responsibilities for defense. But they were most troubled that he is "still thinking about" Article 5 (the mutual assistance clause) in the NATO charter which requires all NATO nations to go to the aid of any one of them that has been attacked.
(As for the Montenegro Ambassador who got elbowed aside...he was not even a formal NATO member at the time, and the "guy who pays all the bills" was somehow pushed into the rear for the photo session. Trump was right in pressing forward. )
That may be the 'inside the Beltway view" from the cadre of elite Washington journalists, the Bush and John McCain (Old War Horse) wing of the Republicans, and the Hate Trump "resist at all cost" Democrats. But for the guys who work hard for a living and pay taxes and breakfast in Joe's Diner in the foothills of the Green Mountains of Vermont...there is another view.
The people up here know full well that the Germans, French, Italians, Belgians and a good part of the rest of the NATO crowd live the GOOD LIFE. We see them tooling around up here in their fancy cars and spending dough in some of the high priced shops. We know that they enjoy multiple long vacations, and sometimes spend them in the USA. Their governments can spend more for the good life of their citizens. They focus on domestic spending while we here in the USA focus on THEIR DEFENSE. As a consequence of this "free lunch" they have the best health care, great roads, bridges, tunnels and infrastructure. They have secure retirement systems. They have broadband wifi in every little village. Their governments spend tax dollars to protect worker's jobs. Their minimal military and defense spending--permits them to spend more on welfare and health care. They boast the world's lowest rates of infant mortality, adult morbidity, and adult mortality from common diseases. They even live longer than we do. Why? BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENTS HAVE LITTLE OR NO OVERHEAD FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE. IT IS THE USA TAXPAYER WHO keeps them SAFE..and permits them the LUXURY to live the good life.
Only five of the 28 nations in NATO presently actually pay their fair share of our mutual defense costs. And it is not a "misunderstanding of President Trump" as these journalists characterize it. When these nations joined NATO they pledged to spend 2% of their GDP (a measure of their economic output) on the common defense. They don't do it. They have been welching on their defense payments. That is an abrogation of their DUTY. President Trump was absolutely right in being forthright about their responsibility. As a good negotiator....he is holding back ---"still thinking on it". He is non-commital regarding whether he supports "Article 5" the mutual assistance clause in the NATO charter. He is perfectly right in resisting endorsement, perhaps until they make some change in their NATO funding.
It's time that somebody stood up for Americans. I was glad to see Trump up there representing us forcefully. It's about time someone did.
URGES NATO MEMBERS TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
TRUMP IS RIGHT AND SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR HIS STANCE
The Washington Post, PBS and the rest of the main stream media can find nothing positive to say concerning Trump's interaction with the snooty gaggle of NATO nations he met in Sicily. The MSM media snigger that he "didn't understand" the NATO relationship.. They chide him for being rude to the Montenegro Ambassador. They ridicule him for squeezing the French President's hand too tight when they met. Their sensibilities were offended when he brow beat the whole group for not living up to their financial responsibilities for defense. But they were most troubled that he is "still thinking about" Article 5 (the mutual assistance clause) in the NATO charter which requires all NATO nations to go to the aid of any one of them that has been attacked.
(As for the Montenegro Ambassador who got elbowed aside...he was not even a formal NATO member at the time, and the "guy who pays all the bills" was somehow pushed into the rear for the photo session. Trump was right in pressing forward. )
That may be the 'inside the Beltway view" from the cadre of elite Washington journalists, the Bush and John McCain (Old War Horse) wing of the Republicans, and the Hate Trump "resist at all cost" Democrats. But for the guys who work hard for a living and pay taxes and breakfast in Joe's Diner in the foothills of the Green Mountains of Vermont...there is another view.
The people up here know full well that the Germans, French, Italians, Belgians and a good part of the rest of the NATO crowd live the GOOD LIFE. We see them tooling around up here in their fancy cars and spending dough in some of the high priced shops. We know that they enjoy multiple long vacations, and sometimes spend them in the USA. Their governments can spend more for the good life of their citizens. They focus on domestic spending while we here in the USA focus on THEIR DEFENSE. As a consequence of this "free lunch" they have the best health care, great roads, bridges, tunnels and infrastructure. They have secure retirement systems. They have broadband wifi in every little village. Their governments spend tax dollars to protect worker's jobs. Their minimal military and defense spending--permits them to spend more on welfare and health care. They boast the world's lowest rates of infant mortality, adult morbidity, and adult mortality from common diseases. They even live longer than we do. Why? BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENTS HAVE LITTLE OR NO OVERHEAD FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE. IT IS THE USA TAXPAYER WHO keeps them SAFE..and permits them the LUXURY to live the good life.
Only five of the 28 nations in NATO presently actually pay their fair share of our mutual defense costs. And it is not a "misunderstanding of President Trump" as these journalists characterize it. When these nations joined NATO they pledged to spend 2% of their GDP (a measure of their economic output) on the common defense. They don't do it. They have been welching on their defense payments. That is an abrogation of their DUTY. President Trump was absolutely right in being forthright about their responsibility. As a good negotiator....he is holding back ---"still thinking on it". He is non-commital regarding whether he supports "Article 5" the mutual assistance clause in the NATO charter. He is perfectly right in resisting endorsement, perhaps until they make some change in their NATO funding.
It's time that somebody stood up for Americans. I was glad to see Trump up there representing us forcefully. It's about time someone did.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
TRUMP-LIKE BAN MAY HAVE STOPPED ABEDIN
TUMP'S SIX NATION TRAVEL BAN MAY HAVE SAVED MANCHESTER FROM TERROR
Had Theresa May instituted a travel ban as proposed by President Trump...(and still not instituted here)...the increased scrutiny at the airports for individuals arriving from the six Moslem nations Trump (and Obama) pointed out as unable to effectively vet air passengers and emigrants a group which which included Libya. Had she instituted such a ban, Albedi, the Manchester subside bomber arriving from Libya would have been subjected to closer scrutiny. Such a ban and institution of "extreme vetting" as proposed byPresident Trump may have frustrated the plans or intercepted the radicalized Salman Albedi
Since the attack in Manchester, we have learned a great deal about the young perpetrator, Salman Albedi, the suicide bomber who blew himself in a crowd of young people and children in the Manchester Arena two days ago. He was of Libyan ancestry, and his parents and his younger brother reside in Libya. He was apparently "radicalized" during his stay in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East He frequently traveled back and forth between Libya and the UK. We also know that the bomb he used was well made and the explosive very powerful . We know that he was angry and seeking revenge for the deaths of Moslem civilians killed in Syria and elsewhere in the Moslem world by western bombing and drone strikes.
He had recently returned from Libya when he committed the horrendous terrorist act...which killed so many young and innocent young people. Knowing his travel history, it may be very likely that the origin of the explosive used in the device he detonated to such horrendous effect was from Libya. It would have been difficult if not impossible to obtain such explosives in Manchester or the UK without detection.
It is possible that had Teresa May, instituted a ban on immigrants from nations in chaos as well as "extreme vetting" procedures for those entering from those countries in the UK as President Trump proposed for the USA, the tragic event in Manchester may have been avoided.
Had Theresa May instituted a travel ban as proposed by President Trump...(and still not instituted here)...the increased scrutiny at the airports for individuals arriving from the six Moslem nations Trump (and Obama) pointed out as unable to effectively vet air passengers and emigrants a group which which included Libya. Had she instituted such a ban, Albedi, the Manchester subside bomber arriving from Libya would have been subjected to closer scrutiny. Such a ban and institution of "extreme vetting" as proposed byPresident Trump may have frustrated the plans or intercepted the radicalized Salman Albedi
Since the attack in Manchester, we have learned a great deal about the young perpetrator, Salman Albedi, the suicide bomber who blew himself in a crowd of young people and children in the Manchester Arena two days ago. He was of Libyan ancestry, and his parents and his younger brother reside in Libya. He was apparently "radicalized" during his stay in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East He frequently traveled back and forth between Libya and the UK. We also know that the bomb he used was well made and the explosive very powerful . We know that he was angry and seeking revenge for the deaths of Moslem civilians killed in Syria and elsewhere in the Moslem world by western bombing and drone strikes.
He had recently returned from Libya when he committed the horrendous terrorist act...which killed so many young and innocent young people. Knowing his travel history, it may be very likely that the origin of the explosive used in the device he detonated to such horrendous effect was from Libya. It would have been difficult if not impossible to obtain such explosives in Manchester or the UK without detection.
It is possible that had Teresa May, instituted a ban on immigrants from nations in chaos as well as "extreme vetting" procedures for those entering from those countries in the UK as President Trump proposed for the USA, the tragic event in Manchester may have been avoided.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
JITTERY OIL MARKETS. WHERE DO PRICES GO?
I can'd decide. My auto lease is up. Do I go with a gas guzzler, a hybrid, or a plug in? The way the oil and gasoline market is going, it is hard for a consumer to decide.
Bloomberg News published an informative article (OPEC Keeps Focus on Shale Threat) and interesting graph yesterday (May 19, 2017 ) that may explain a good part of why the oil and gasoline market is so unstable. According to them....the primary factor is the new US-developed technology--FRACKING of shale rock by hydraulic pressure, sand, and chemicals to extract dispersed oil from semipermeable sedimentary rocks like shale.
World oil prices dropped precipitously last year---bringing the price of a barrel of oil down to about the twenty dollars a barrel range. That gave the big producers of oil the jitters.
But the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC) cartel is no longer the only world producer. The massive growth of a technology developed in the USA and known as 'Fracking" or the hydraulic fracturing of oil bearing rocks most commonly oil bearing shale rock found deep underground has made the US ((and the states of Texas and Wyoming) a big player too. In this process wells are drilled into rocks below the surface which have their pore spaces filled with oil but the oil is trapped and can not flow as it might in more porous rock like a sandstone. These widely distributed shales are known as "oil shales". Wells are drilled into the oil shales---often the driller turns the well pipe to drill horizontally to penetrate the oil bearing rock over long distances. Then, water, sand, and chemicals are forced down the pipe, under very high pressure to fracture the shales, and release the oil into the (often) heated chemically laced water. The sand in the mixture is used to prop open the fine fractures generated by the water pressure. Then, the oil and water are forced to the surface where the oil is separated from the water and chemicals used to extract it. It is a messy and costly process, generating environmental impacts on the surface and to the water table. It uses a great deal of fresh water...that is then pumped down into the ground. But it does produce oil. In fact, the US is now producing about one- fourth of the total world product mostly from the new technology.
So back in January 2016 while OPEC was producing about 33 m bbl per day, the US oil industry's shale oil production efforts by "fracking" was generating a bit more than 9.2 m bbl/day, or about 22% of the total production. The total world oil production (OPEC and other world producers plus the fracking oil from the USA) was more than the world could use at the time. Thus an "oil glut" ensued, and oil prices tumbled. The OPEC producers, wary of the market share they were losing to the oil shale industry in the US, decided NOT TO REDUCE production ( a frequently used ploy used to buoy up prices) as they have done on many occasions in the past. Instead they kept production steady as prices fell. Since their production costs were much lower, they hoped to squeeze investment out of the US shale oil market where production costs are nearly three times what the Saudi costs are.
The financial squeeze did work. When the prices fell many US entrepreneurs decided that shale oil wells were not such a hot bargain. Others cut back their present investment in shale oil stocks. Although the numerous small producers in the west who had started drilling, or who were operating new wells (with big overhead costs) simply continued to pump and sell oil at a loss, because the option of closing down would simply cost them more that continued pumping. The result was that shale oil production did fall off when the prices were very low--but not to zero. By early July 2016, production of US shale oil fell off to only about 8.5 m bbl per day.--a drop of nearly 800,000 bbl per day. US shale oil production remained at about that level to about October of 2016 when in the face of low prices, but an uptick in some parts of the world economy, production began to rise again. In a seven month period from October to April (2017) production of shale oil increased by almost one million barrels per day from about 8.4. mbbl per day to about 9.4 MLB per day, returning to nearly its original level. That triggered a drop in price again.
The ploy by OPEC to squeeze the US shale oil producers out of business has not worked--completely. The total production is still down in the shale oil basins in western USA. But it is certainly not dead.
There are two factors at work here. The long established and well-placed oil producers can still make a good profit even on oil selling at very low price levels. In fact Saudi oil is the cheapest to get to market. Saudi oil costs a few cents less than $9.00 per barrel to produce and get to market. (Think of the money that rolls in to Saudi coffers when barrel prices are up to $100 dollars each). Iran and Iraq are a close second and third respectively, with production costs at about $9 and $10 dollars a barrel. While Russia's oil costs are next lowest, at about $19 dollars a barrel.
But let's look at why the worlds largest and cheapest producer, Saudi Arabia's oil is so cheap. They sit over a huge pool or underground oil ( as does Iran and Iraq). They have paid off all their initial investment costs many years ago. New and replacement-well drilling costs are low. A big advantage is that- as a sovereign state who controls the oil--they pay no taxes on their product. Their wells are mostly all in place, merrily pumping premium high grade oil. Some wells continue to flow under pressure pushing oil through well pipes from deep underground. On these wells there are even no pumping costs. Their transportation and other infrastructure is in place. They are well positioned geographically to supply oil to major importers. As a result, they can make a profit even when oil is pegged at say 20 dollars a barrel when they are make a 100% profit.
Not so with other producers, who have big extraction costs, or must extract low grade oil from tar sands like Canada, or must use vast quantities of water, power and chemicals to fracture shales like a good portion of the US production. So these extraction businesses are dependent on high prices to continue to keep their enterprises profitable. The USA can not just pump pump pump...at any cost. World conditions set the oil price and economic forces decide is it profitable or not to pump oil. When it costs a company $27 dollars a barrel to produce and a barrel sells for only. $22 dollars...oil wells close down.
So the world remains at present---unbelievably--with surfeit of oil. We now have after all these years of production enough oil to run all our cars, trucks, trains, boats, airplanes and earth moving machinery...and when those elements are not running so much we have a potential oil glut. When the world economy heats up...China and the USA and the EU are major players--they demand more oil and the prices climb. But when there is a downturn, the prices will fall. That sounds like it may be not so bad.. for consumers.
So this week some time the OPEC producers will gather and decide how much they will produce. Will they keep up production and try to squeeze US shale oil producers or will they simply take their 100% profit on their cheap oil and be happy?
We will soon see.
Bloomberg News published an informative article (OPEC Keeps Focus on Shale Threat) and interesting graph yesterday (May 19, 2017 ) that may explain a good part of why the oil and gasoline market is so unstable. According to them....the primary factor is the new US-developed technology--FRACKING of shale rock by hydraulic pressure, sand, and chemicals to extract dispersed oil from semipermeable sedimentary rocks like shale.
World oil prices dropped precipitously last year---bringing the price of a barrel of oil down to about the twenty dollars a barrel range. That gave the big producers of oil the jitters.
But the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC) cartel is no longer the only world producer. The massive growth of a technology developed in the USA and known as 'Fracking" or the hydraulic fracturing of oil bearing rocks most commonly oil bearing shale rock found deep underground has made the US ((and the states of Texas and Wyoming) a big player too. In this process wells are drilled into rocks below the surface which have their pore spaces filled with oil but the oil is trapped and can not flow as it might in more porous rock like a sandstone. These widely distributed shales are known as "oil shales". Wells are drilled into the oil shales---often the driller turns the well pipe to drill horizontally to penetrate the oil bearing rock over long distances. Then, water, sand, and chemicals are forced down the pipe, under very high pressure to fracture the shales, and release the oil into the (often) heated chemically laced water. The sand in the mixture is used to prop open the fine fractures generated by the water pressure. Then, the oil and water are forced to the surface where the oil is separated from the water and chemicals used to extract it. It is a messy and costly process, generating environmental impacts on the surface and to the water table. It uses a great deal of fresh water...that is then pumped down into the ground. But it does produce oil. In fact, the US is now producing about one- fourth of the total world product mostly from the new technology.
So back in January 2016 while OPEC was producing about 33 m bbl per day, the US oil industry's shale oil production efforts by "fracking" was generating a bit more than 9.2 m bbl/day, or about 22% of the total production. The total world oil production (OPEC and other world producers plus the fracking oil from the USA) was more than the world could use at the time. Thus an "oil glut" ensued, and oil prices tumbled. The OPEC producers, wary of the market share they were losing to the oil shale industry in the US, decided NOT TO REDUCE production ( a frequently used ploy used to buoy up prices) as they have done on many occasions in the past. Instead they kept production steady as prices fell. Since their production costs were much lower, they hoped to squeeze investment out of the US shale oil market where production costs are nearly three times what the Saudi costs are.
The financial squeeze did work. When the prices fell many US entrepreneurs decided that shale oil wells were not such a hot bargain. Others cut back their present investment in shale oil stocks. Although the numerous small producers in the west who had started drilling, or who were operating new wells (with big overhead costs) simply continued to pump and sell oil at a loss, because the option of closing down would simply cost them more that continued pumping. The result was that shale oil production did fall off when the prices were very low--but not to zero. By early July 2016, production of US shale oil fell off to only about 8.5 m bbl per day.--a drop of nearly 800,000 bbl per day. US shale oil production remained at about that level to about October of 2016 when in the face of low prices, but an uptick in some parts of the world economy, production began to rise again. In a seven month period from October to April (2017) production of shale oil increased by almost one million barrels per day from about 8.4. mbbl per day to about 9.4 MLB per day, returning to nearly its original level. That triggered a drop in price again.
The ploy by OPEC to squeeze the US shale oil producers out of business has not worked--completely. The total production is still down in the shale oil basins in western USA. But it is certainly not dead.
There are two factors at work here. The long established and well-placed oil producers can still make a good profit even on oil selling at very low price levels. In fact Saudi oil is the cheapest to get to market. Saudi oil costs a few cents less than $9.00 per barrel to produce and get to market. (Think of the money that rolls in to Saudi coffers when barrel prices are up to $100 dollars each). Iran and Iraq are a close second and third respectively, with production costs at about $9 and $10 dollars a barrel. While Russia's oil costs are next lowest, at about $19 dollars a barrel.
But let's look at why the worlds largest and cheapest producer, Saudi Arabia's oil is so cheap. They sit over a huge pool or underground oil ( as does Iran and Iraq). They have paid off all their initial investment costs many years ago. New and replacement-well drilling costs are low. A big advantage is that- as a sovereign state who controls the oil--they pay no taxes on their product. Their wells are mostly all in place, merrily pumping premium high grade oil. Some wells continue to flow under pressure pushing oil through well pipes from deep underground. On these wells there are even no pumping costs. Their transportation and other infrastructure is in place. They are well positioned geographically to supply oil to major importers. As a result, they can make a profit even when oil is pegged at say 20 dollars a barrel when they are make a 100% profit.
Not so with other producers, who have big extraction costs, or must extract low grade oil from tar sands like Canada, or must use vast quantities of water, power and chemicals to fracture shales like a good portion of the US production. So these extraction businesses are dependent on high prices to continue to keep their enterprises profitable. The USA can not just pump pump pump...at any cost. World conditions set the oil price and economic forces decide is it profitable or not to pump oil. When it costs a company $27 dollars a barrel to produce and a barrel sells for only. $22 dollars...oil wells close down.
So the world remains at present---unbelievably--with surfeit of oil. We now have after all these years of production enough oil to run all our cars, trucks, trains, boats, airplanes and earth moving machinery...and when those elements are not running so much we have a potential oil glut. When the world economy heats up...China and the USA and the EU are major players--they demand more oil and the prices climb. But when there is a downturn, the prices will fall. That sounds like it may be not so bad.. for consumers.
So this week some time the OPEC producers will gather and decide how much they will produce. Will they keep up production and try to squeeze US shale oil producers or will they simply take their 100% profit on their cheap oil and be happy?
We will soon see.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
"RUSSIA DID IT" IS A HOAX
"RUSSIA DID IT" ICA REPORT IS POLITICIZED HOAX
OBAMA UNDERMINED NEW PRESIDENT AND NATION
In the approximately ten weeks between the election of 2016 and the inauguration of President Trump, former President Obama and his team had ample time to set trip-wires and conduct the skulduggery to undermine the new administration and set the stage for the phony "Russia Did It" story that is presently plaguing, and weakening our nation.
During the interregnum between November 8 and January 21 our former "scholar President" decided that the 2016 election was not to his liking and the manifest will of the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump were of no account. Apparently, Mr. Obama felt his personal knowledge of what was best for America took precedence over the tens of millions who voted to seat Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. Their collective will was nothing. What chutzpah! What hubris! What a denial of what our Constitution guarantees and what we as Americans believe, that the power to govern comes from the will of the people--not from past leaders, the entrenched establishment, bureaucrats, and Washington elites. Mr. Obama's intention to undermine the will of the people reveals he has forgotten the first lesson of civics: that the people are the source of political power.
What did he do? It is apparent now that immediately after the election Obama set a number of trip wires, stumbling blocks, and staged embarrassments rigged to undermine and delegitimize the incoming--novice politician, and popularly elected President. The fact that Trump was strenuously opposed by Obama and his team, the "deep state", the intelligence community, the political establishment, both Democrat and Republican parties, and the vast Washington bureaucracy all conspired to ease Obama's sinister efforts. All these forces were poised to either turn thi
s new leader from his promises to the people and the popular course of action he campaigned on
--- or destroy him. Obama and his administration were also in the perfect position to initiate the pitfalls for the new team. Though they lost the election, for more than two long months they continued to hold on to all the levers of power. They used the power of the state's intelligence gathering and spying for political purposes, becoming the chief conspirators in the effort to undermine the new administration. What their sinister efforts have wrought in these first three months of the new administration are acts which go well beyond mere partisanship....they border on--- I hesitate to say it---treason.
Recently, in a May 12, 2017 opinion piece for Fox News, Fred Fleitz, of the Center For Security Analysis (a think tank for security concerns) penned a piece entitled: "More indications Intel assessment of Russian Interference was rigged". In this article Fleitz reprises one of the initial acts which set the stage for the "Russia Did It' story. This has become a persistent, mind-numbing mantra of the left. So what did Obama do?
On January 6, 2017 not quite a month after the election, at the urging of President Obama and his openly anti-Trump CIA chief, John Brennan, the US "Intelligence Community" issued an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that found that "Russia deliberately interfered in the
2016 election to the benefit of the Trump campaign".. The report hit the news media like a ton of bricks and has been accepted as if it was a "natural law" (like the laws of gravity). The media have bludgeoned the Trump Administration with it over and over again. The most recent "scandal" in which Trump purportedly revealed "top secrets" to the Russian foreign minister at a meeting in the Oval Office is only another example of this same noxious paradigm of intelligence politicization.
However on closer examination this ICA with the purported legitimacy of natural law and the backing of "17" of the nation's security institutions has been revealed to be nothing but A rigged affair. A political document promoted by the Obama crowd to undermine the incoming administration. Not natural law at all but a poorly supported politicized hypotheses, cobbled together by a small group of Obama stalwarts and Trump-haters hand-picked from among a small selected sampling of the nation's security institutions. It has the same legitimacy as any other bit of "false news" stories coming from the biased media bureaus of the far left.
Fred Flitz writes in the above opinion piece, that the May 8, 2017 testimony of James Clapper, Obama's partisan, politicized Director of National Intelligence, who perjured himself in front of Congress, confirmed that the "ICA reflected the views of only three of the nation's security agencies, FBI, NSA and CIA. All three of which were headed at the time by Obama appointees who were known Trump haters. John Brennan of CIA made his negative opinion of Trump clear both before and after the election on many occasions. The participants who were tasked with making the assessment were hand picked by the heads of the three agencies. These "experts" were under the direction of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence---James Clapper himself. The report according to Clapper's own testimony was "vetted and approved by me". The Director of the FBI at the time, Comey, stated in his Senate testimony that the ICA was the result of "logic" not evidence. Suggesting that this ICA was a subjective conclusion not based on "evidence" but on direction from the Obama administration. Finally in an unusual outcome for such a report, there were no dissenting views. Fleitz remarks that the whole process "stinks of "politicization" .
The "Russia Did It" story is a hoax and a danger to the nation's well being.
OBAMA UNDERMINED NEW PRESIDENT AND NATION
In the approximately ten weeks between the election of 2016 and the inauguration of President Trump, former President Obama and his team had ample time to set trip-wires and conduct the skulduggery to undermine the new administration and set the stage for the phony "Russia Did It" story that is presently plaguing, and weakening our nation.
During the interregnum between November 8 and January 21 our former "scholar President" decided that the 2016 election was not to his liking and the manifest will of the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump were of no account. Apparently, Mr. Obama felt his personal knowledge of what was best for America took precedence over the tens of millions who voted to seat Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. Their collective will was nothing. What chutzpah! What hubris! What a denial of what our Constitution guarantees and what we as Americans believe, that the power to govern comes from the will of the people--not from past leaders, the entrenched establishment, bureaucrats, and Washington elites. Mr. Obama's intention to undermine the will of the people reveals he has forgotten the first lesson of civics: that the people are the source of political power.
What did he do? It is apparent now that immediately after the election Obama set a number of trip wires, stumbling blocks, and staged embarrassments rigged to undermine and delegitimize the incoming--novice politician, and popularly elected President. The fact that Trump was strenuously opposed by Obama and his team, the "deep state", the intelligence community, the political establishment, both Democrat and Republican parties, and the vast Washington bureaucracy all conspired to ease Obama's sinister efforts. All these forces were poised to either turn thi
s new leader from his promises to the people and the popular course of action he campaigned on
--- or destroy him. Obama and his administration were also in the perfect position to initiate the pitfalls for the new team. Though they lost the election, for more than two long months they continued to hold on to all the levers of power. They used the power of the state's intelligence gathering and spying for political purposes, becoming the chief conspirators in the effort to undermine the new administration. What their sinister efforts have wrought in these first three months of the new administration are acts which go well beyond mere partisanship....they border on--- I hesitate to say it---treason.
Recently, in a May 12, 2017 opinion piece for Fox News, Fred Fleitz, of the Center For Security Analysis (a think tank for security concerns) penned a piece entitled: "More indications Intel assessment of Russian Interference was rigged". In this article Fleitz reprises one of the initial acts which set the stage for the "Russia Did It' story. This has become a persistent, mind-numbing mantra of the left. So what did Obama do?
On January 6, 2017 not quite a month after the election, at the urging of President Obama and his openly anti-Trump CIA chief, John Brennan, the US "Intelligence Community" issued an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that found that "Russia deliberately interfered in the
2016 election to the benefit of the Trump campaign".. The report hit the news media like a ton of bricks and has been accepted as if it was a "natural law" (like the laws of gravity). The media have bludgeoned the Trump Administration with it over and over again. The most recent "scandal" in which Trump purportedly revealed "top secrets" to the Russian foreign minister at a meeting in the Oval Office is only another example of this same noxious paradigm of intelligence politicization.
However on closer examination this ICA with the purported legitimacy of natural law and the backing of "17" of the nation's security institutions has been revealed to be nothing but A rigged affair. A political document promoted by the Obama crowd to undermine the incoming administration. Not natural law at all but a poorly supported politicized hypotheses, cobbled together by a small group of Obama stalwarts and Trump-haters hand-picked from among a small selected sampling of the nation's security institutions. It has the same legitimacy as any other bit of "false news" stories coming from the biased media bureaus of the far left.
Fred Flitz writes in the above opinion piece, that the May 8, 2017 testimony of James Clapper, Obama's partisan, politicized Director of National Intelligence, who perjured himself in front of Congress, confirmed that the "ICA reflected the views of only three of the nation's security agencies, FBI, NSA and CIA. All three of which were headed at the time by Obama appointees who were known Trump haters. John Brennan of CIA made his negative opinion of Trump clear both before and after the election on many occasions. The participants who were tasked with making the assessment were hand picked by the heads of the three agencies. These "experts" were under the direction of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence---James Clapper himself. The report according to Clapper's own testimony was "vetted and approved by me". The Director of the FBI at the time, Comey, stated in his Senate testimony that the ICA was the result of "logic" not evidence. Suggesting that this ICA was a subjective conclusion not based on "evidence" but on direction from the Obama administration. Finally in an unusual outcome for such a report, there were no dissenting views. Fleitz remarks that the whole process "stinks of "politicization" .
The "Russia Did It" story is a hoax and a danger to the nation's well being.
HILLARY'S 3 MILLION, HOW MANY ILLEGAL?
Trump is often criticized for claiming that his loss in the popular vote (by about 3 million votes) was laughable. He was called a liar and disillusioned.
But the figures seem to support his contention.
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) an objective and non partisan research organization released a summary of its research on illegal ( euphemistically termed "undocumented") immigrants in California. Their up to date figures indicate that there are presently more than 2 million illegals in California. Even Govenor Jerry Brown accepts the figure "claiming that in California "they are all over the place" that ten (10) percent of the California labor force are undocumented (illegal). Most of this population is from Latin America. Many live with family members who are citizens.
California labor participation rate is about 62.3% of the population. The state population is about 40 million (in 2016). Sixty two percent of the total population is: 40 x 0.623 = 24.9 million workers. Of those the PPIC claims that about 10% are illegal immigrants. Thus there may be as many as 2.5 million adult, working illegal immigrants living in California. These people are motivated to vote, probably live among legal immigrants who do vote, and are of voting age. In California as in most states like New York and elsewhere...to vote you must simply give evidence of your residence. No one is going to ask you for your immigration status or proof of where you were born. The likelihood that these nearly three million illegal immigrants vote (illegally) is very good and not to be pooh poohed.
Then multiply this number from California by the 300 cities, states and legal jurisdictions that are termed "sanctuary" states, and cities and those numbers from California grow greatly.
It is very likely that a large percentage of those working, illegal immigrants do vote. Does that rise to the level of impacting the election? The staunch support the Democrats, who favor these voters--seems to suggest that they do. They are probably not as insignificant of a number as the Democrats would have one believe.
Do they rise to the level of the three million vote win in the popular vote that Hillary garnered in the Democrat wards in California and New York? One can not say with certainty, but the numbers suggest that one who questions how many of those votes were cast by illegals--- is certainly not"delusional".
One must ask as well, can these illegal voters alter the outcome of elections? Certainly they must in the 300 or more sanctuary cites, legal jurisdictions and states where large numbers of them reside. Is that fair or just to those who are here legally that their votes are "diluted " by the admixture of immigrants who are here illegally? Does that make a mockery of our system of immigration laws?
But the figures seem to support his contention.
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) an objective and non partisan research organization released a summary of its research on illegal ( euphemistically termed "undocumented") immigrants in California. Their up to date figures indicate that there are presently more than 2 million illegals in California. Even Govenor Jerry Brown accepts the figure "claiming that in California "they are all over the place" that ten (10) percent of the California labor force are undocumented (illegal). Most of this population is from Latin America. Many live with family members who are citizens.
California labor participation rate is about 62.3% of the population. The state population is about 40 million (in 2016). Sixty two percent of the total population is: 40 x 0.623 = 24.9 million workers. Of those the PPIC claims that about 10% are illegal immigrants. Thus there may be as many as 2.5 million adult, working illegal immigrants living in California. These people are motivated to vote, probably live among legal immigrants who do vote, and are of voting age. In California as in most states like New York and elsewhere...to vote you must simply give evidence of your residence. No one is going to ask you for your immigration status or proof of where you were born. The likelihood that these nearly three million illegal immigrants vote (illegally) is very good and not to be pooh poohed.
Then multiply this number from California by the 300 cities, states and legal jurisdictions that are termed "sanctuary" states, and cities and those numbers from California grow greatly.
It is very likely that a large percentage of those working, illegal immigrants do vote. Does that rise to the level of impacting the election? The staunch support the Democrats, who favor these voters--seems to suggest that they do. They are probably not as insignificant of a number as the Democrats would have one believe.
Do they rise to the level of the three million vote win in the popular vote that Hillary garnered in the Democrat wards in California and New York? One can not say with certainty, but the numbers suggest that one who questions how many of those votes were cast by illegals--- is certainly not"delusional".
One must ask as well, can these illegal voters alter the outcome of elections? Certainly they must in the 300 or more sanctuary cites, legal jurisdictions and states where large numbers of them reside. Is that fair or just to those who are here legally that their votes are "diluted " by the admixture of immigrants who are here illegally? Does that make a mockery of our system of immigration laws?
Saturday, May 13, 2017
THE GENERAL FLYNN/RUSSIA CASE: AN INVESTIGATION SEARCHING FOR A CRIME
The Democrats are desperate. They are so weakened as a political entity that they are grasping at the proverbial straws in the vain hope that in some way they could undo the results of the last election and justify their massive failure in the 2016 election. A monstrous failing in which their candidate who was phenomenally qualified, intricately connected to the power brokers and rolling in money lost to an underfunded political neophyte. It was a horrible embarrassment. Now their dangerous flailings in the corridors of power endanger themselves and weaken the nation. One hopes that their sense of patriotism and reminders of the oaths that they took to defend and protect the nation and the Constitution will in time sway them from the perilous course they are persuing which denies the electorate their due and weakens us all.
Sixty-three million Americans voted for President Trump, these voters were widely dispersed across the Nation..forming a majority in thirty-six of our fifty states. That is the system our Founders set up for our election process. President Trump is our legitimately elected President....Let us all get on with governing...as the Constitution directs us.
The feeding frenzy the Democrats are engaged in presently...is a fishing expedition. They are attempting to weaken and delegitimize our President. That harms us all. Their immediate focus is on one General Michael Flynn. They are investigating General Flynn with the hopes that something will "turn up" they could claim as a "crime"---to support their so far, groundless and unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had something to do with their massive election loss.
But aside from fantasy, innuendo and day dreams the Democrats, and their partisans in the Media have provided NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.
What are the clobbering General Flynn with?
Flynn resigned from the White House staff as National Security Advisor, after his private conversations with the Russian Ambassador Mssr Kysliak, was secretly recorded and then illegally leaked to the press. This act of some still unidentified culprit in the Obama Administration was and remains the only CRIME we know about in this affair. Flynn was well within his perview as NS Advisor to the President to have legitmate communications with the ambassador of a major world power.
The Trump Administration was at that in a stage in which its policies were in flux. Some within the evolving Administration were in favor of closer ties with Russia, while others were for continuing on in a reprise of ill considered USA-Russian Cold War. It was well known that General Flynn was of the former group--along with the vast number of Trump supporters. This was in fact the policy statements that the President enunciated during the election--resetting the relationship with Russia. A policy which 63 million voters who elected Mr. Trump assented to when they pulled the lever in the voting booth. This policy was not subversive or unAmerican. But perhaps because of the evolving nature of foreign policy at that time...General Flynn thought it wise and prudent to underplay his conversations with the Russian Ambassador. What could they have been? "Hey when the President feels it is right we might reduce or eliminate those sanctions we put on you?" That was a policy proposed by the President himself. Perhaps its a good idea. Flynn was less that truthful about his conversations with Kislyak. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama partisan, who may have been the one who illegally "unmasked" Flynn's private conversation, made the unsubstantiated, far-fetched claim that Flynn was " liable to blackmail" by the Russians, who now presumably knew that Flynn "led" to VP Pensee. That is a stretch. But the brouhaha in the media was too much of a distraction and the President sought and received a letter of resignation from Flynn.
Elsewhere I have discussed the pittance (in DC money terms) that Flynn received, from Russia while a private citizen, to appear in a Russian television broadcast and another ceremonial affair. Again there is no evidence that any crime was committed while Flynn was a private citizen. The Democrats hypocritically ignored the vast sums the Clintons received from foreign powers, including Russia while Hillary was Secretary of State. That was OK...Flynn's fees as a private citizen, which mostly covered his travel expenses, are now viewed with suspicion. This is laughable.
The "Russians did it" claim is a joke, but a dangerous joke on us all. It is a self-inflicted wound on the nation by a weak and flailing Democrat Party and their media supporters. The 63 million people who elected this President have a right to a stable and functioning governementt.
So far these delusional elements have acted to undermine OUR governemnt and OUR nation. Its is time for them to quit their paranoia, their h
The Democrats are desperate. They are so weakened as a political entity that they are grasping at the proverbial straws in the vain hope that in some way they could undo the results of the last election and justify their massive failure in the 2016 election. A monstrous failing in which their candidate who was phenomenally qualified, intricately connected to the power brokers and rolling in money lost to an underfunded political neophyte. It was a horrible embarrassment. Now their dangerous flailings in the corridors of power endanger themselves and weaken the nation. One hopes that their sense of patriotism and reminders of the oaths that they took to defend and protect the nation and the Constitution will in time sway them from the perilous course they are persuing which denies the electorate their due and weakens us all.
Sixty-three million Americans voted for President Trump, these voters were widely dispersed across the Nation..forming a majority in thirty-six of our fifty states. That is the system our Founders set up for our election process. President Trump is our legitimately elected President....Let us all get on with governing...as the Constitution directs us.
The feeding frenzy the Democrats are engaged in presently...is a fishing expedition. They are attempting to weaken and delegitimize our President. That harms us all. Their immediate focus is on one General Michael Flynn. They are investigating General Flynn with the hopes that something will "turn up" they could claim as a "crime"---to support their so far, groundless and unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had something to do with their massive election loss.
But aside from fantasy, innuendo and day dreams the Democrats, and their partisans in the Media have provided NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.
What are the clobbering General Flynn with?
Flynn resigned from the White House staff as National Security Advisor, after his private conversations with the Russian Ambassador Mssr Kysliak, was secretly recorded and then illegally leaked to the press. This act of some still unidentified culprit in the Obama Administration was and remains the only CRIME we know about in this affair. Flynn was well within his perview as NS Advisor to the President to have legitmate communications with the ambassador of a major world power.
The Trump Administration was at that in a stage in which its policies were in flux. Some within the evolving Administration were in favor of closer ties with Russia, while others were for continuing on in a reprise of ill considered USA-Russian Cold War. It was well known that General Flynn was of the former group--along with the vast number of Trump supporters. This was in fact the policy statements that the President enunciated during the election--resetting the relationship with Russia. A policy which 63 million voters who elected Mr. Trump assented to when they pulled the lever in the voting booth. This policy was not subversive or unAmerican. But perhaps because of the evolving nature of foreign policy at that time...General Flynn thought it wise and prudent to underplay his conversations with the Russian Ambassador. What could they have been? "Hey when the President feels it is right we might reduce or eliminate those sanctions we put on you?" That was a policy proposed by the President himself. Perhaps its a good idea. Flynn was less that truthful about his conversations with Kislyak. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama partisan, who may have been the one who illegally "unmasked" Flynn's private conversation, made the unsubstantiated, far-fetched claim that Flynn was " liable to blackmail" by the Russians, who now presumably knew that Flynn "led" to VP Pensee. That is a stretch. But the brouhaha in the media was too much of a distraction and the President sought and received a letter of resignation from Flynn.
Elsewhere I have discussed the pittance (in DC money terms) that Flynn received, from Russia while a private citizen, to appear in a Russian television broadcast and another ceremonial affair. Again there is no evidence that any crime was committed while Flynn was a private citizen. The Democrats hypocritically ignored the vast sums the Clintons received from foreign powers, including Russia while Hillary was Secretary of State. That was OK...Flynn's fees as a private citizen, which mostly covered his travel expenses, are now viewed with suspicion. This is laughable.
The "Russians did it" claim is a joke, but a dangerous joke on us all. It is a self-inflicted wound on the nation by a weak and flailing Democrat Party and their media supporters. The 63 million people who elected this President have a right to a stable and functioning governementt.
So far these delusional elements have acted to undermine OUR governemnt and OUR nation. Its is time for them to quit their paranoia, their h
MCCABES: TYPICAL DC CORRUPTION?
"Caesar's wife must be above all suspicion."
Andrew McCabe and Dr.Jill McCabe seem to have been enmeshed in the quintessential DC form of corruption: Clinton style influence buying.
Corruption is the (mis)use of the powers of government officials for their own, a politcal ally, or their family's private gain. Sadly, such behavior is so prevalent in our Capital it is practically accepted there as normal behavior of reasonable people. In the corridors of power in DC and the super-affluent counties which surround that City, the stink of corruption rises like a miasma from the decaying mud of the saturated lowland. Most of us live far away from the bottom lands around Washington where at least we can keep our boot-heels clean of the sticky black goo of the national morass where fraud, criminality, dishonesty, nepotism, extortion, and bribery are the too common currency. In Washington, the swamp's denizens are preoccupied, not with the Nation's business, but with who is sleeping (and in collusion) with whom, which Senator's son or daughter has been offered a plum position in return for a good deal in upcoming legislation, or who's wife is showered with emoluments for perhaps a wink and a nod in an investigation, or government largess for a client's company. This way of life is so discordant with the open, hard working, honest nature of most Americans and of America's heartland that learning of these behaviors in Washington churns one's stomach, or like former FBI Director Comey it makes one "slightly nauseous" , when it raises its ugly head.
Revelations of these examples of self-serving or immoral behavior or outright criminality make the rest of us gag when "politicians" are exposed, but when corruption touches upon the leadership of the FBI and its 36 thousand employees who function as the Nation's domestic crime fighters we must be assured that the leadership remain beyond even a whiff of suspicion...like Pompeia, Caesar's wife..
The Andrew McCabe and Dr. Jill McCabe story is archetypical of the DC life style. The McCabes seem to be decent people. But they live and work in Washington. Assistant Director McCabe (now Acting Director) of the FBI and his pediatrician wife, Jill McCabe appear to have become enmeshed ignorantly (or willingly) in what seems a suspicious plan by Clinton partisans to control the investigatory posture of the FBI perhaps for political purposes.
During the early days of the 2016 campaign, it was clear that Mrs. Clinton was going to run for President. It was also clear that her mishandling of her email documents loomed as a serious electoral liability. The email issue was seen by her ardent supporters like Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a long time Clinton lieutenant and ally, as likely to generate an investigation by the FBI. At that time, Mr. Andrew G. McCabe was one of the top officials in the FBI. Governor McAuliffe, Democrat of Virginia, may have perceived of a strategy to help his political mentors and allies--Bill and Hillary Clinton. At that time McAuliffe appears to have tapped Dr. Jill McCabe (a Democrat) to run for a State Senate seat and arranged to help finance her campaign to the tune of nearly three quarters of a million dollars. Much of these funds came from a PAC controlled by the Clintons and McAuliffe.
This could all be just happenstance and serendipity...but it occurred in Washington where corruption is rife.
The wife of Caesar must be above even a whiff of suspicion. But is this the case for the McCabes? The McCabe story appears too much like typical "Clintonesque" influence buying. That is: McAuliffe saw a way to get leverage over a powerful FBI individual--one who is known for his ability to present precise summaries to the Director-- and who would likely have a say in how a critical investigation of the Democrat candidate might go. There is no smoking gun, but there is too much suspicion here...even when obviously descent people like the McCabes are involved.
Assistant FBI Director McCabe heightened suspicions when he failed to acknowledge in his annual FBI financial form the funds his wife received from the McAuliffe-Clinton PAC. He left the space for his spouse's finances in this form empty.
It is unwarranted and unlikely that McCabe would escape suspicion as Caesar did by divorce, but his and his wife's entanglements with Gov Mc Auliffe and the Clintons certainly makes his accession to Director of the FBI---unwise and very unlikely.
Andrew McCabe and Dr.Jill McCabe seem to have been enmeshed in the quintessential DC form of corruption: Clinton style influence buying.
Corruption is the (mis)use of the powers of government officials for their own, a politcal ally, or their family's private gain. Sadly, such behavior is so prevalent in our Capital it is practically accepted there as normal behavior of reasonable people. In the corridors of power in DC and the super-affluent counties which surround that City, the stink of corruption rises like a miasma from the decaying mud of the saturated lowland. Most of us live far away from the bottom lands around Washington where at least we can keep our boot-heels clean of the sticky black goo of the national morass where fraud, criminality, dishonesty, nepotism, extortion, and bribery are the too common currency. In Washington, the swamp's denizens are preoccupied, not with the Nation's business, but with who is sleeping (and in collusion) with whom, which Senator's son or daughter has been offered a plum position in return for a good deal in upcoming legislation, or who's wife is showered with emoluments for perhaps a wink and a nod in an investigation, or government largess for a client's company. This way of life is so discordant with the open, hard working, honest nature of most Americans and of America's heartland that learning of these behaviors in Washington churns one's stomach, or like former FBI Director Comey it makes one "slightly nauseous" , when it raises its ugly head.
Revelations of these examples of self-serving or immoral behavior or outright criminality make the rest of us gag when "politicians" are exposed, but when corruption touches upon the leadership of the FBI and its 36 thousand employees who function as the Nation's domestic crime fighters we must be assured that the leadership remain beyond even a whiff of suspicion...like Pompeia, Caesar's wife..
The Andrew McCabe and Dr. Jill McCabe story is archetypical of the DC life style. The McCabes seem to be decent people. But they live and work in Washington. Assistant Director McCabe (now Acting Director) of the FBI and his pediatrician wife, Jill McCabe appear to have become enmeshed ignorantly (or willingly) in what seems a suspicious plan by Clinton partisans to control the investigatory posture of the FBI perhaps for political purposes.
During the early days of the 2016 campaign, it was clear that Mrs. Clinton was going to run for President. It was also clear that her mishandling of her email documents loomed as a serious electoral liability. The email issue was seen by her ardent supporters like Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a long time Clinton lieutenant and ally, as likely to generate an investigation by the FBI. At that time, Mr. Andrew G. McCabe was one of the top officials in the FBI. Governor McAuliffe, Democrat of Virginia, may have perceived of a strategy to help his political mentors and allies--Bill and Hillary Clinton. At that time McAuliffe appears to have tapped Dr. Jill McCabe (a Democrat) to run for a State Senate seat and arranged to help finance her campaign to the tune of nearly three quarters of a million dollars. Much of these funds came from a PAC controlled by the Clintons and McAuliffe.
This could all be just happenstance and serendipity...but it occurred in Washington where corruption is rife.
The wife of Caesar must be above even a whiff of suspicion. But is this the case for the McCabes? The McCabe story appears too much like typical "Clintonesque" influence buying. That is: McAuliffe saw a way to get leverage over a powerful FBI individual--one who is known for his ability to present precise summaries to the Director-- and who would likely have a say in how a critical investigation of the Democrat candidate might go. There is no smoking gun, but there is too much suspicion here...even when obviously descent people like the McCabes are involved.
Assistant FBI Director McCabe heightened suspicions when he failed to acknowledge in his annual FBI financial form the funds his wife received from the McAuliffe-Clinton PAC. He left the space for his spouse's finances in this form empty.
It is unwarranted and unlikely that McCabe would escape suspicion as Caesar did by divorce, but his and his wife's entanglements with Gov Mc Auliffe and the Clintons certainly makes his accession to Director of the FBI---unwise and very unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)