BloggeRhythms

Two major items today. Both sadly illustrating how badly the POTUS has performed and vividly demonstrate the mishandled, or perhaps intentional, current status of the U.S. in the Middle-East.

 

To begin, it’s been obvious for quite a long time now that America’s growth and prosperity are both greatly enabled and enhanced by energy independence. Particularly, affordable fuel. Yet, this administration continually panders to political allies and contributors whose mission persists against “global-warming” which not only hasn’t occurred in the past 18 years, due to natural polar shifting will likely be reversed.  

    

Despite the administration’s constant pressure to demonize fossil fuel, inhibiting drilling for oil wherever possible, ingenuity has fostered alternatives. Particularly fracking, which in turn has increased supply, thereby also reducing costs and, ultimately, consumer prices. Which leads to another major benefit that should have been brought about six years ago.

 

Simeon Kerr and Anjli Raval @ft.com, write that, “Saudi Arabia is returning to the bond market with a plan to raise $27bn by the end of the year, in the starkest sign yet of the strain lower oil prices are putting on the finances of the world’s largest oil exporter.”

 

While Saudi Arabia cited problems arising from “rivals such as the US shale industry,” one has to assume that the continual drop in prices for crude must also be negatively affecting Russia and weakening Iran. However, due to grossly mishandled domestic policy regarding oil production, both nations are in far better economic shape today than they ought to be.   

 

Which leads into a similar story, this one from Paul Miller @observer.com who writes about Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s stating that, “The night the Iran nuclear deal was announced was a sleepless one,” whereas he was “utterly distraught by the terms of the agreement.”

 

The professor was so upset that he quickly wrote a book about the deal in which he presented two major theories, both of them regarding the POTUS negatively.

 

According to the professor, “The cynical theory, which seems to be supported by the data, is that once [Obama] was out of politics, that is, once he couldn’t run again and once the House and the Senate were firmly in the hands of Republicans, he was going to do what he always wanted to do and he was less than completely candid with those of us whom he told that the military option was on the table and that Iran would never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

 

“All of this has been said by Obama himself,” Dershowitz explains. “When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections – we didn’t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons – we didn’t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow – we didn’t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times. 

 

“Asked if he believes that President Obama is a failed leader, Dershowitz, who supported the president in both elections, replied, “I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader.” Dershowitz continued, “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.” 

 

And then, the professor delivered the clincher, saying, “If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”

 

Professor Dershowitz’s present objective is to “influence the outcome of their vote by engaging directly with the senators and congressmen, first with my own writing and ideas. Second, by encouraging their constituents to read it and write to them, call them and urge them to do the right thing.”

 

Thus, in this example we see a prominent Democrat, and formerly ardent supporter of the POTUS and his goals, who’s now clearly changed his mindset. And when someone like the professor goes public with his displeasure, one has to wonder how many others agree with him which is likely a huge, and continually growing number.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Jamie Schram, Geoff Earle and Laura Italiano @nypost.com headlined their article today, “FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe”

 

The authors write: “The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday."

 

While the feds are investigating to what extent Bill’s wife relied on her home server to send and store classified documents, the source said, “It’s definitely a criminal probe, I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”

 

The most interesting part of the article addressed the statute being applied here, because it was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005. And although, it is used rarely and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified.”

 

The fact that General Petraeus suffered a similar fate may prove to be critically important whereas, although the statute is rarely used, a comparative example has been set.

 

And then, there’s another interesting aspect of the case, whereas Bill’s wife’s lawyer is his longtime attorney David Kendall, who also represented General Petraeus. The general “pleaded guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.”

 

Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios