Proud to be ranked a top 50 Blog – feedspot.com.

Is This The Reason?

As the reader knows, I have struggled for a month with questions in trying to understand the administration’s positioning.
Why won’t they open drilling and oil developmental in the U.S.?
Why would we fund the Russians who are threatening the world?
Why would we make a deal with those dedicated to destroying us, like Iran, to get oil?
Why would we want to deal with Maduro and Venezuela?
Why would we fund their unrest in our region of the world?
What is the difference, I keep asking, between them drilling and us drilling other than driving up our deficits?
Why don’t they want the money and jobs here and not funding these who want to destroy us?
What is the difference on the environment they worry so much about where the drilling is done?
No one is saying don’t move to green, just use our resources until you do. Why not?

I still can’t answer any of these questions.

However, Politico provided an explanation in their reporting over the weekend as to why we won’t cut buying Russian oil immediately. Now mind you, we have cut all ties except funding the one thing that keeps them afloat – oil. The money they are using to attack and threaten World War III.
What did Politico, a left leaning publication say?
On Capitol Hill, momentum for a bill banning Russian oil has been building for days. Senators on both sides of the aisle have made clear they are ready to pass a bill, and Speaker NANCY PELOSI announced her support for the move Thursday. But the White House isn’t fully on board with the idea. Their reasoning: a concern that pulling any oil out of the market would likely raise gas prices — and if that were to occur, the White House, not Congress, is likely to take the blame.

“The White House” is not on board cutting paying Russia because the price of gas will likely go up and they will be “blamed.”
Read that and I ask you, is this the leadership we want in the United States of America? Leadership that is worried about themselves and not the nation and world? With people being slaughtered, maimed and dying, they are worried, not about funding the aggressor, but getting blamed for higher prices?

If this is true the President who started out comparing himself to Franklin Roosevelt cannot be compared to even Neville Chamberlin. At least Chamberlin thought he was bringing peace on earth by conceding land. This administration is funding war, aggression and death for personal gain. Assuming Politico and their sources are correct, that might be the worst example of leadership in my lifetime. You don’t get elected to take care of you personally. You get elected to lead the world. To make it better and safer for every inhabitant.
Ask yourself a question:
What other President in your lifetime would have made this same decision for that reason?
What a failure this is.

That’s How I See It Today.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *