“The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.” That per CNN. 

“In 2016, Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book ‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump’.”

Is this some kind of penance on this holy weekend for CNN’s past sins of omission? Perhaps. But Jennings then asked the hard question: Why did Obama go soft on Russia?

“My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama’s estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.”

“But the Mueller report makes it clear that the Russian interference failure was Obama’s alone. He was the commander-in-chief when all of this happened. In 2010, he and Eric Holder, his Attorney General, declined to prosecute Julian Assange, who then went on to help Russia hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails in 2016. He arguably chose to prioritize his relationship with Putin vis-à-vis Iran over pushing back against Russian election interference that had been going on for at least two years.”

“If you consider Russian election interference a crisis for our democracy, then you cannot read the Mueller report, adding it to the available public evidence, and conclude anything other than Barack Obama spectacularly failed America. 

PFOA’s make water wetter i.e., more slippery. They have been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population in the low and sub-parts per billion (ppb) range, and levels are higher in chemical plant employees and surrounding subpopulations. PFOA serves as a surfactant in the emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers and as a building block for the synthesis of perfluoroalkyl-substituted compounds, polymers, and polymeric materials. PFOA has been manufactured since the 1940s in industrial quantities.^[7] It is also formed by the degradation of precursors such as some fluorotelomers. PFOA is used as a surfactant because it can lower the surface tensionof water more than hydrocarbon surfactants while having exceptional stability due to having perfluoroalkyl tail group.^[8][6] The stability of PFOA is desired industrially but is a cause of concern environmentally.How general populations are exposed to PFOA is not completely understood. PFOA has been detected in industrial waste, stain-resistant carpets, carpet-cleaning liquids, house dust, microwave popcorn bags, water, food, some cookware and Teflon (PTFE) products.

As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. Studies have found correlation between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.^[9] Other studies have not found a conclusive link between the chemical and human health. The primary manufacturer of PFOS, the 3M Company (known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company from 1902 to 2002), began a production phase-out in 2002 in response to concerns expressed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Eight other companies agreed to gradually phase out the manufacturing of the chemical by 2015.

By 2014, EPA had listed PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonates (salts of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, PFOS) as emergent contaminants:

Those Weasel Words are from page two of the Mueller report. 

Why wasn’t that the end of the report? Why was a two volume report needed to explain the very simple facts that there was no collusion and no conspiring? What part of no don’t you understand? I’ll be glad to explain it
If it’s too hard to comprehend
So tell me what part of no
Don’t you understand? Listen as Lorrie Morgan explains it HERE. 

In an article published July 12, 2012 in the UNZ Review “IQ, Race and The Wealth of Nations” HERE.the thought occurs that IQ is not built-in but to some unknown extent is shaped by the experiences of those tested. But suppose a group of people had to worry about being attacked by wild animals so they didn’t worry about what’s going on in the TIMES. Compare them to another group who had no worries about survival so they could read things. The second group would score higher on IQ tests but put them in the dangerous environment and they would not survive as long as the natives.