Trump, Oil and Saudis. Cold War? Root of Evil.

What a combination it could be if we had Trump's Guts and Winnie's Phraseology
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buy American - Restore America
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Karen Elliott House was one of the WSJ editorial and op ed stars.  She is semi-retired but from time to time still writes insightful articles such as the one below. She praises Trump but warns he must not carry his recent displeasure too far regarding the oil picture and the Saudi's actions.

Oil Becomes a Risky Game for Saudis

Lower prices put U.S. producers at a disadvantage, but they also cost Riyadh and imperil ties with the U.S.

By Karen Elliott House

President Trump is playing a tense poker game with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The stakes are America’s oil industry and the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

The 34-year-old prince and the president have been fast friends since Mr. Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip and received a lavish welcome. The president stood by the prince when he severed relations with Qatar, and again when he was accused of approving the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. But now the prince is threatening America’s oil industry, U.S. national security and Mr. Trump’s re-election prospects.

In March the crown prince flooded the market with oil to intimidate Russia into curbing its own oil production and shore up prices. His decision coincided with the Covid-19 crisis, which tipped economies into recession, sending oil prices plummeting. Mr. Trump quickly engaged, persuading Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil producers in early April to cut production. The cuts proved too little, too late, as global consumption fell further.

Today the stakes are even higher for both the president and the prince. The U.S. position as the world’s largest oil producer is eroding, and with it U.S. energy self-sufficiency, essential for security. With oil prices around $30 a barrel, Saudi Arabia faces its worst economic crisis in decades—and worse, the possible loss of its American protector.

Yet the crisis offers an opportunity to work together to strengthen both oil prices and U.S.-Saudi relations. That would require quick action by the crown prince and wise cooperation by Mr. Trump before the June 10 summit of oil producers. The two leaders have plenty of incentive to work together. If they can stop raising each other, end the poker game, and agree to divide the pot, they can both come out ahead by stabilizing oil prices. If they persist in their high-risk game, they’ll both lose.

Mr. Trump played a powerful card last week when his administration announced it would remove Patriot missiles sent last fall to protect Saudi oil facilities after a drone attack by Iran. Within a day, the Crown Prince quietly pledged to cut Saudi production further June 1—but not yet enough to rebalance supply and demand in a decimated global economy.

The U.S. oil boom is a crowning achievement of the Trump presidency. Last year U.S. net petroleum imports averaged only 3% of consumption, the lowest since 1954. In February the industry hit a production record. But oil analysts project bankruptcies will reduce U.S. production around 20% by December. The U.S. oil shale industry needs at least $40 oil to maintain production.

For the Saudis, the stakes are even higher. The crown prince confronts a huge fiscal deficit at a time of rising public expectations. He needs $80-a-barrel oil to fund government spending levels. His Vision 2030 plan to wean the Saudi economy off oil dependence is grinding to a halt. His government has warned of “painful” austerity measures and announced cuts in cost-of-living subsidies to government workers and a tripling of Saudi Arabia’s unpopular value-added tax to 15%. And the kingdom depends on U.S. protection.

So far Mr. Trump is playing a skillful game. Removing Patriot missiles doesn’t mean the Iranian threat has diminished; only political support for Saudi Arabia among oil-state Republican senators. “If you want to behave like our enemy, we will treat you like our enemy,” Texas’ Ted Cruz has warned Riyadh.

So, why should the Saudis fold on their determination to maintain their share of dwindling world oil sales? For three reasons. The market’s large supply overhang will force them to cut because there’s no place to sell. Dwindling U.S. support can only embolden Iran. And political problems for Mr. Trump could lead to a victory of the Democrats, eager to punish Saudi human-rights abuses and improve relations with Tehran.

For Mohammed bin Salman, facing an Iranian threat and a budget chasm, there 

are no bright solutions. Still, the prince and the president are better off in sync than at 
loggerheads.

Ms. House, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is author of “On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, 
Religion, Fault Lines—and Future.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

China intends to take whatever advantage they can of the pandemic.  They are 
doing so by being diplomatically aggressive so as to elevate their case of  relative 
superiority over America's theoretical decline.

In my previous memo the op ed by George Friedman challenges the relative 
position of China so you can decide for yourself.

China needs American trade purchases more than we need their products. 
Time will tell who plays their cards best 
in this struggle for world domination on China's part versus America's 
desire to retain status quo, open seas, world trade and the spread of freedom and democracy.

The U.S. Doesn’t Need a New Cold War

Proponents of heightening the conflict with China understate the diplomatic successes of recent years.

By Robert B. Zoellick

The U.S. approach toward China now relies on confrontation and accusation. Yet in diplomacy, as in war, the other side gets a vote. On May 22 China will convene two of its annual summits, the National People’s Congress and the Political Consultative Conference. The Communist Party will choreograph messages carefully: The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union casts a long shadow in Beijing, and Covid-19 came close to shaking the party’s legitimacy. In Chinese history, diseases, famines and other natural disasters have foretold the end of dynasties.

President Xi Jinping will want the gatherings to herald China’s relative success in handling the virus, its emerging economic recovery, and its role in a global “community of shared interests,” as he has previously called the world order. He needs to moderate Beijing’s propaganda overreach and its emissaries’ heavy-handed responses to critics. Chinese historians recall that past spasms of patriotic and party fervor—the Boxer Rebellion and the Cultural Revolution—scared the world.

How will the U.S. respond? The proponents of a “New Cold War” have declared their objections to China, but not what they plan to accomplish. When I worked with Secretary of State James Baker during the closing years of the old Cold War, we focused on what we wanted to get done—results, not mere expressions of dissatisfaction.

The New Cold Warriors can’t contain China given its ties throughout the world; other countries won’t join us. Nor can the U.S. break the regime, though the Communist Party’s flaws could open cracks within its own society. The U.S. can impose costs on China, but to what end, and at what price to Americans? After three years of bluster and tariffs, President Trump negotiated a narrow trade deal with China. Even before the pandemic the deal was unlikely to be fulfilled, and now it looks fanciful.

The New Cold Warriors expunge the successes of past U.S. cooperation with China. Beijing was once a wartime enemy, a supplier of proxy foes in North Korea and North Vietnam, and the world’s leading proliferator of missiles and nuclear weapons technology. Beginning in the 1990s, China reversed course and worked with the U.S. to control dangerous weapons. It turned from proliferation partnerships with Iran and North Korea to helping the U.S. thwart their development of nuclear arms. From 2000 to 2018, U.S. diplomacy prodded Beijing to support 182 of the 190 United Nations Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on states. China also assisted U.N. peacekeeping and helped Washington end the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
China became the largest contributor to global economic growth. Beijing cut its current-account surplus from about 10% of gross domestic product to near zero, which drove world-wide expansion. For 15 years China was the fastest-growing destination for U.S. exports. It stopped manipulating its exchange rate. During the financial crisis, Beijing pushed the largest and quickest stimulus and helped stave off global depression, while cooperating closely with the U.S., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

China is also a leading innovator in non-fossil-fuel technology, though it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. and its allies successfully pressured Beijing to ban sales of elephant ivory, but China still permits illegal trafficking in rare species. This pandemic will likely prompt China to change its treatment of wildlife.

Over the past 50 years, America’s prudent and persistent policy toward Taiwan, combined with Beijing’s reluctant restraint, has enabled democracy to prosper safely.

This doesn’t mean that all is well with China. But it is flat wrong to suggest that working with China has not served U.S. interests. Self-deception will lead to dangerous diplomacy.

The U.S. and its partners face a staggering set of challenges. We need to find medical solutions to Covid-19. We must learn how to protect ourselves against future epidemics more quickly. America also needs a strong recovery, which will require a growing global economy, including China. Washington must anticipate financial weaknesses from mountains of debt and experimental monetary policies. Environmental and energy risks will require international cooperation and innovation. We have begun a huge digital transformation. Terrorists have not retired, and dangerous would-be regional hegemons still seek weapons of mass destruction. And we need to deal with China.

The U.S. strategy to address these challenges must begin with its allies. Europe’s role will be especially vital. Europeans have enjoyed Beijing’s benefits but also have felt China’s heavy hand. Most Europeans do not want to become Chinese tributary states, but they may adopt a benign neutrality toward Beijing. America’s appeal could tip the balance. The New Cold Warriors ignore how Washington led in defining shared objectives with allies during the Cold War—prodding, but also compromising, and combining idealism with pragmatism. America’s European and Indo-Pacific partners know addressing today’s problems will require working with China, even if countries need to develop separate systems in critical areas such as telecommunications.

The U.S. must have the military means to deter aggression against vital interests and allies. America should also promote the cause of freedom, which hasn’t been a Trump priority, and be a steady friend to other free countries. Even with authoritarian competitors such as China, the U.S. should emphasize human aspiration, not name-calling. We want to appeal to the Chinese public, not insult them. The U.S. needs to offer allies and the world an attractive approach, which must include working with China on mutual interests.

Mr. Zoellick is a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wayne discovers the 'root' of evil?

Obama and Me: How I Knew 

Obama Was a Bad Guy Before 

Anyone Else

By Wayne Allyn Root

I've been writing about "Obama the bad guy" for many years. I was the first to name former President Barack Obama the head of the Obama crime family. I coined the phrase "Obamagate" to describe his reign of crimes against candidate and then President Donald J. Trump.

Obama's public persona was always a scam. I knew the real Obama -- way before anyone else caught on.

Take the Slate magazine column published days ago by a liberal hack and Obama apologist. He sounded the usual liberal talking points: There is no Obamagate. There is no scandal. It's a conservative conspiracy.

Then this liberal named names and called conservatives liars: Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and yours truly.

These liberal hacks must all be reading the same talking points. Only days before, I received a text from a liberal group urging Democratic voters to call their congressman and demand more free money. Then they named the enemies of Democrats who are standing in the way of more government aid -- President Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and yours truly.

Interesting. All I can say is, what an honor to be on that list. I've clearly just made All-Pro.

But the liberal hack at Slate got the timing wrong. He quoted my 2019 column about Obamagate. I've actually been on top of this story since 2016.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, I wrote dozens of newspaper columns about the deep-state conspiracy against Trump. In my newspaper column on Sept. 23, 2017, I finally gave it the name Obamagate. Because I knew every part of the scandal of spying on the Trump campaign had Obama's fingerprints all over it.

Obama was the capo di tutti of the Obama crime family. He gave the orders. He gave the approval. He was in the room as each crime was hatched.

How did I know before anyone else? Why did I believe Obama was capable of committing such high crimes and treason? Because of my personal history with Obama.

I was Obama's classmate at Columbia University, class of 1983. We were both pre-law and political science majors. I was also on the Libertarian presidential ticket in 2008 -- the first time in U.S. history that college classmates ran on opposing presidential tickets. What are the odds?

During the campaign, I was asked in hundreds of media interviews: "Were you two friends at Columbia University? What was Obama like?" I always answered honestly: "I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him. And I don't know a single classmate who ever met him either." I repeated this story hundreds of times.

At the time, I was also a regular guest on Fox News, where I branded Obama a radical socialist whose policies would ruin the U.S. economy, retard economic growth and kill millions of jobs. I was proved right. That must have made Obama even angrier.

I had clearly gotten under Obama's skin. Soon the IRS came knocking. I was targeted for destruction. It was a witch hunt, persecution and intimidation all in one.

It was the worst IRS attack any tax lawyer I spoke to had ever heard about. They all agreed that I was on the president's enemies list.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch took my case, and together, over a two-year period, we forced the IRS to hand over my personal tax files. This was a political persecution based on my conservative political beliefs. The proof was written all over my files.

Who do you think ordered it?

President Obama clearly hated my guts because I had embarrassed him repeatedly in the national media. So, he decided to use the power of government to destroy me. That's a crime, by the way.

If Obama hated me that much, think about how he must have felt about famous billionaire celebrity Donald Trump, who had questioned whether Obama is even an American citizen. Trump had tortured Obama in the national media. Then Trump was about to succeed him as president with a promise to erase everything he accomplished.

That's how I knew.

If Obama sent a government agency after his college classmate Wayne Root, think about what he'd be willing to do to Donald Trump. The answer is anything and everything: spying; unmasking; leaking; framing Trump and his top advisors; and, eventually, in desperation after all else failed, a full-blown coup.

It was all Obama. It was always Obama.

The real Obama is nothing like his public persona. The real Obama is a ruthless bad guy. I should know. I was the first to experience the crimes of Barack Obama -- up close and personal.

Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, entrepreneur, best-selling author, nationally-syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network at 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. EST/3 p.m. to 6 p.m. PST.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++