Reblogged from We the People:

By fitsnews

Glenn Beck’s new media outlet has an interesting scoop up this week about a “gentleman” by the name of Brett Kimberlin – a convicted domestic terrorist whose job now appears to be subjecting bloggers to “death threats, blackmail, extorsion (sic), numerous erroneous lawsuits, cyber-attacks of phone, email and social networking accounts and … smear campaigns.”All (indirectly, of course) supported by liberal financier George Soros.

Read more… 300 more words

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village…, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”

Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

By Victor Thorn

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.

“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.

“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”

AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”

The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.

He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?

By Victor Thorn

Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”

Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.

A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”

The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

As Obama’s numbers and campaign donations drop… the rumblings of adding Hillary to the ticket as Veep… are growing louder!

For anyone out there that is cheering… You better do your homework!  Hillary is just as much of a Progressive (pro-U.N., pro-NWO) as Obama; she supports the Muslim Brotherhood (More at: Weiner Fallout).

Hillary was George Soros’ Darling before Obama was!!

Don’t believe that… Read: The Shadow Party

Source:

When any country’s leader reaches comprehensive dictator status, he begins either incarcerating or killing off his opponents (aka enemies).  One need only look at the rich and murderous histories of Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other tyrannical rulers to know that this is a fait accompli in all totalitarian regimes.  In one way or another, each of these tyrants conducted their own personal genocide(s).

In fact, Barack Obama’s FCC “Diversity” Czar Mark Lloyd has touted as legitimate the usage of a willing and malleable press (as was done with the media-based “Big-Lie” that the Tutsis planned to enslave the Hutus which resulted in the Rwandan slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis within a period of 100 days) to conduct just such a genocide for “social change.”  The openly Black Liberation (Marxist) Lloyd also praises Venezuelan Marxist Dictator Hugo Chavez and has said the “whites” need to be forced to step down allowing blacks and other minorities to have their turn at power.   ObamaCzar Lloyd also says that free speech is overrated and “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”  And with regards to the American people, one of Lloyd’s patently racist comments is:  “There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am!”

Now, in a similar manner to Lloyd’s comments, US Dictator Barack Hussein Obama has announced he has given his latest Czar (John Brennan) the “right” to assassinate those whom Obama chooses.  One of the few—if only—outlets actually providing any reportage on this issue is the Associated Press.  The AP article:

“Who will drones target? Who in the US will decide?” advises:  “White House counterterror [sic] chief [aka “Murder Czar] John Brennan has seized the lead in guiding the debate on which terror leaders will be targeted for drone attacks or raids, establishing a new procedure to vet both military and CIA targets.”

In the past, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had substantial input into this process.   Now, however, appointee-Brennan has been given (by his boss Obama) the role of holding the decision trump card(s) as to when, where and whom will be ‘taken out‘ by the recently enabled and enacted drone aircrafts.  One thing the AP story did not cover is the fact that the Obama-drones are now being used—nationwide—for domestic surveillance within the United States.  One must—logically, I believe—surmise that it won’t be a great deal longer until Obama uses the Brennan-controlled drones for Obama’s opponents (aka “domestic enemies”).   That, after all, was largely why the “domestic-enemy” NDAA bill was crafted by the Marxist pair McCain and Levin.  And, now Brennan has been given license to choose who will be killed.

The US Police State is well underway, folks, and I suspect (if the Obama syndicate remains in power) that soon a ‘Berlin Wall’ type scenario will exist here.

Then there’s this continuing lunacy from Congress.  Not to be outdone by his boss, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) decided it was his turn to threaten and attempt to intimidate SCOTUS—and specifically Chief Justice John Roberts.   Although the majority of the American people oppose the forced imposition of the ObamaCare monstrosity, Leahy warned C.J. Roberts that Congress had passed it and he had better uphold Congress‘ decision ‘or else‘.  Essentially, Leahy told C.J. Roberts that he must put aside the 1803 Marbury v Madison decision, which established the basis of Judicial Review under the US Constitution’s Article III.   Note:  It appears, as Obama has already subordinated Congress to his Executive Branch,  Congress is attempting to place the US Supreme Court (and specifically Roberts) in an inferior position to Congress.   Note 2:  For those who have recently spent the last 16 years, or so, in the government school system you may not be aware that the US federal government is comprised of three co-equal branches:  Executive (POTUS), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (SCOTUS).

Folks, SCOTUS seems to be We-the-People’s last hope toward bringing some semblance of sanity back to the now thoroughly corrupt and insane other-two-governmental-branches and allowing at least one last vestige of liberty.  Amongst others, we MUST win this fight or relegate ourselves to our own slavery.  If we and the USA are to have any chance, whatsoever, of survival Mr. Obama and his syndicate must be removed from office.

As a last note, Obama is issuing multiple Executive Orders on an almost daily basis to place us more firmly into bondage and to better ensure the complete dismantling of the USA—in case he IS voted out of power in November.  Let’s make sure he is voted out—in a landslide—and ensure that all of his subjugating E.O.s are overturned when the new POTUS is elected!  Remember that Reagan overturned virtually all the E.O.s President Carter had put into place.  There is real hope and change if we make it so and remove the Obama cabal.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land”—2 Chronicles 7:14

Source:

The new defense authorization act all but erases decades of  U.S. government compliance with the letter and the spirit of the Posse  Comitatus Act 1878, a law that prohibits the use of the U.S. military  to perform law enforcement functions within the United   States, according to  police officials and others opposed to the militarizing of American  law enforcement.

Provisions in the new authorization act allow military reservists  — Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines — to be called to duty and  deployed in the event of a natural disaster or  other emergency within the homeland, as well as mobilization of  reserve units to support counterterrorism and security  missions overseas, according to the American Forces Press Service’s  Donna Miles.

“Except for a crisis involving a weapon of mass destruction, the reserves  historically have been prohibited from providing a homeland disaster response,”  Army Lt. General Jack C. Stultz, the Army Reserve chief, told reporters on  Friday.

Originally, such deployments were the duty of National Guard,  which are under the control of state governors who would  call in guardsman as needed to support civil police forces, fire  departments and other emergency personnel.

However, when Hurricane Katrina fiercely struck the Gulf Coast in  2005, especially the city of New Orleans, active-duty service members became  “the federal default force,” according to Miles.

But the reason for that deployment was the inability of Louisiana’s governor  and New Orleans’ mayor to command and control the police and emergency  responders. Now the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration have acquired the  authority to use military resources in such emergencies, including deploying  soldiers during an insurrection.

“Is anyone surprised at this latest disregard for the constitution and  tradition? The military forces in the U.S., Canada and Mexico have been training  in urban warfare and response to terrorist threats such as weapons of mass  destruction (WMD) scenarios,” said police lieutenant Walter Ingram of the  Morningside, N.Y., police department.

Ingram also noted that “the Bush Administration and congress toyed  with the idea of practically militarizing FEMA (Federal Emergency Management  Administration). which is basically a ‘bean-counting’ agency. But that idea  went nowhere.”

But General Stultz is gung-ho about the new authorization. “In a lot of  cases, there were reserve-component soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who  were close at hand with the capabilities needed, but didn’t have the authority  to act,” he said. “Finally, we got the law changed. This new legislation says  that now we can use Title 10 reserves.”

For these forces to be used, the law specifies that the Commander in  Chief — President Barack Obama –must declare an emergency or disaster and a  state governor must request the assistance.

Stultz clarified what hasn’t changed under the law. Civil authorities will  remain the first responders. And when they need military support, National Guard  forces will be the first to step in when called by their state governor. “We are  not trying to change any of that,” the general said.

But now, when a situation also demands a federal response, reserve forces can  step in to assist for up to 120 days, added Miles.

But political strategist Mike Baker is confused about the lack of news  coverage and lack of controversy over the prospect of giving the U.S.  warfighters so much leeway to operation within U.S. borders. “Imagine if  President [George W.] Bush announced this increased use of military resources  stateside. Does anyone doubt the media frenzy as well a the vitriol that  would emanate from Democrats in both houses of the U.S. Congress?” Baker asked  rhetorically.

Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., commander of U.S. Northern Command, and his  staff are evaluating their federal response plan to take advantage of these new  capabilities, Stultz said.

Stultz participated in a recent U.S. Army North exercise that helped to test  the concept. The scenario involved two hurricanes hitting the United States  almost simultaneously, requiring a federal response, according to Miles’ AFPS  report.

The exercise helped participants work through the procedures that would be  involved in calling Title 10 forces to duty, Stultz explained. “How does the  governor and the adjutant general within a state go through the process of  asking for federal help?” he said. “How do Army North and Northcom identify what  capabilities are close by that they can use? How do we go through alerting these  forces to go down and help this natural disaster? And as always, who cuts the  order to put them on duty, and who provides the funding?”

Stultz said he’s gratified by almost universal support for the new  legislative authority.

“Everybody is on board, from the governors to the adjutants general to Army  North to Northcom saying this is going to be a good thing,” he said. “We just  have to make sure we have the procedures and processes worked out.”

And now, before the authority is actually needed, is the time to get that  resolved, he said. “Let’s not wait until a hurricane hits to say, ‘How do we do  it?’ he said.

Another change in the 2012 authorization act allows Title 10 reservists to be  called to duty to support unnamed overseas contingencies. The reserves, and  particularly the Army Reserve, have a long history of deploying members for  medical, engineering and other missions to support theater engagement and  security cooperation efforts.

Typically, they did so as their annual training, which generally limits their  engagements to 21 to 29 days, Stultz said. That could be particularly limiting  when the missions are in far-flung parts of the world, he said, sometimes  reducing time on the ground to as little as 14 days before the reservist had to  pack up and return home.

“With this new authority, now we can send them down for much longer periods  of time,” Stultz said.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/new-defense-authorization-act-militarizes-law-enforcement-bad-idea?f=must_reads#ixzz1vv5iBbA2 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

This is outrageous.  A New York public grade school has just made it mandatory to study Arabic beginning this Fall.

According to the New York Post,

An upper Manhattan public elementary school will be the first in the city to require that students study Arabic, officials said yesterday.

Beginning next semester, all 200 second- through fifth-graders at PS 368 in Hamilton Heights will be taught the language twice a week for 45 minutes — putting it on equal footing with science and music courses.

One reason Principal Nicky Kram Rosen selected Arabic — as opposed to more common offerings, such as Spanish or French — is because it will help the school obtain a prestigious International Baccalaureate standing. …

The Arabic requirement becomes mandatory in September. But PS 368 is a so-called “choice’’ school and no kids, even those living nearby, are forced to attend it. If the school ever enrolls a student who objects to learning Arabic, administrators will deal with that on a case-by-case basis, Jackson said.

Mohamed Mamdouh, who teaches the pilot program, said, “Soon, Arabic will be a global language like French and Spanish. These kids are like sponges. It’s amazing to see their progress.’’

Our “kids are like sponges”?  Yes, they are.  So, they should be taught about Western Civilization, and our heritage that is rooted in freedom, and individual value.  But, that was removed from school curriculum long ago by the radical secular Progressives.  Now, they want our children be able to read the Quran, listen to the draconian precepts of sharia, and watch Al Jazeera inveigh against Christianity, democracy, equality, and freedom in its native Arabic language.  When Communism aimed its missiles and armies at our nation President Reagan didn’t fold and force our children to learn Russian.

Leave it to the Liberals to try to completely destroy all that is good about our culture and turn it into something distorted, ugly, and dangerous.

Hat tip: Gini

Update:  According to Barenakedislam,

I wonder if they will tell the students in Harlem that the word for black in Arabic is the same as the word for slave? In the Arabic language, even before the prophet Mohammed, a slave owner and trader himself, the word slave – ‘Abd’ – was the same word used to describe Black Africans. Arabs always looked upon Black people as inferior beings. Muslims, today, still do.

Source:

If we are trying to become independent of foreign oil, then why is the Obama  administration allowing the Chinese government to buy up U.S. oil and gas  deposits worth billions of dollars?  This makes absolutely no sense  whatsoever.  The United States desperately needs to maintain control over  its own domestic energy resources so that we can end our addiction to foreign  oil.

As I have written about previously, the United   States actually has plenty  of oil.  If we would simply use the resources that we already have,  we would never have to import a single drop of foreign oil.  But instead,  we continue to be the largest importer of oil on the planet and we are allowing  China to rapidly buy up oil and gas deposits inside the United States.   This is fundamentally wrong and it is a serious threat to our national  security.  But apparently everything is for sale in the United States  today, and that includes our precious energy resources.

The Chinese government is using two giant corporations to buy up these energy  resources.

The first is the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).   According to Wikipedia, this corporation is 100 percent owned  by the Chinese government

CNOOC Group is a state-owned oil company, fully owned by the Government  of the People’s Republic of China, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and  Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) performs the rights and  obligations of shareholder on behalf of the government.

The second is Sinopec Corporation.  Sinopec Group is the largest  shareholder (about 75% of the shares) in Sinopec Corporation.  And as the Sinopec website tells us, Sinopec Group is owned  by the Chinese government

Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopec Corp., is a super-large  petroleum and petrochemical group incorporated by the State in 1998 based on the  former China Petrochemical Corporation. Funded by the State, it is a State  authorized investment arm and State-owned controlling company.

So wherever you see CNOOC or Sinopec you can replace those names with the  Chinese government.  The Chinese government essentially runs both of those  companies.

And both companies have been very busy buying up U.S. oil and gas  deposits.

For example, CNOOC recently completed a 570 million dollar deal that gives it  a one-third interest in huge oil and gas deposits in Colorado and Wyoming.   The following is from Wyoming Energy News

Chinese energy company Cnooc Ltd. has agreed to pay $570 million for a  one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s 800,000 leased acres in  northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming. The acreage is in the Denver-Julesburg  (DJ) and Powder  River basins. Cnooc is China’s biggest offshore oil and natural  gas producer.

In fact, according to a recent Business Insider article, this deal gives the Chinese  government the right to a third of any new oil discovered by Chesapeake Energy  in the entire region

The Niobrara Shale formation stretches over Colorado and  Wyoming, as well as Kansas and Nebraska. Chesapeake Energy’s position is  in Wyoming and Colorado. If Chesapeake find any more oil in this region, CNOOC  has the rights to 33.3% of what is found.

But this is not the only area of the country where China now owns energy  rights.  The following is an excerpt from a recent state-by-state breakdown  that appeared in the Wall Street Journal

Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third  interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader  $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third  interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal with Devon  Energy.

Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third stake  in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5 billion  deal.

Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third  interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon  Energy.

Texas: Cnooc acquired a one-third  interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a  $2.16-billion deal.

The Texas deal was particularly noteworthy.  The following is how a San Antonio news source described that deal

State-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is buying a multibillion-dollar  stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing  the political waters for further expansion into U.S.  energy reserves.

With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a  one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of  properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of  oil equivalent.

So why is the Obama administration allowing this to happen?

Are they so desperate to have China continue lending money to the United    States that they would allow the Chinese government to pillage our precious  energy resources?

Somebody needs to be asking our politicians that question.

But oil and gas are not the only U.S. assets that the Chinese have been  buying up.

In a previous article, I detailed how the Chinese have been purchasing huge  chunks of real estate all over the country as well.

For example, a recent Forbes article detailed some of the real estate deals  that China has been doing in New York

According to a recent report in the New York Times, investors from China  are “snapping up luxury apartments” and are planning to spend hundreds of  millions of dollars on commercial and residential projects like Atlantic Yards  in Brooklyn. Chinese companies also have signed major leases at the Empire State  Building and at 1 World Trade Center, the report said.

In addition, it was recently announced that the Federal Reserve will now  allow Chinese banks to buy up American banks.

Where will all of this end?

Should all of us start learning to speak Chinese?

Meanwhile, our trade deficit with China continues to get even larger.   Our trade deficit with China last year was $295.5 billion, which was the largest trade deficit  that one country has had with another country in the history of the world.   This year, we are already on a pace to break that record.

So thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of  dollars will continue to leave the United States and go to China.

And China will continue to use some of the money they are getting from us to  buy up pieces of America.

Does anyone else out there see something very, very wrong with all of  this?

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/why-is-obama-allowing-chinese-to-buy-us-oil-and-gas-deposits?f=must_reads#ixzz1vkkUVaTM Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

The Washington Post has obsessed over an incident in which Mitt Romney allegedly cut the hair of a fellow high school student. The mainstream media paid plenty of attention to George W. Bush’s “irresponsible youth,” and speculated about whether he had used cocaine. Yet, the MSM has essentially ignored Barack Obama’s admission in his autobiography of cocaine use, of attending Socialist seminars while in college, and of being drawn as a young man to Marxists and Communists.

Is this another example of MSM bias? Of course it is. Yet one can distinguish Obama’s indiscretions from those of Romney and Bush. The two Republicans came from very wealthy backgrounds and had a clear path they were expected to follow. They can be viewed as spoiled rich kids, and in Bush’s case as someone who strayed a bit from the path.

Obama did not come from a wealthy background, nor was there a clear path for him to follow. His youth was filled with ambiguity – including, but not limited to, ambiguity about his race and his relationship to the United States (though not ambiguity about where he was born). In Obama’s words:

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. . . .I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents. . . .

Thus, it was natural for the young Obama to experiment as he searched for his identity and his own way into the world.

But this raises an obvious, though seldom asked set of questions: Did Obama resolve his identity issue? If so, when, and what was the resolution?

We know that as an adult, Obama continued to associate, and started working, with the same kind of left-wing radicals he had gravitated towards as a youth. And when he found religion, it was in the form of the Black liberation theology of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Moreover, as late as March 2008, Obama said he could “no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. . .no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . .”

Based on the record, the case can be made that Obama still has not resolved the fundamental identity issues that drove him to experiment with weird, obnoxious ideologies that are fundamentally hostile to America and what it has stood for. That’s scary.

The case can also be made, and has been by Stanley Kurtz, that Obama has resolved these issues in favor of a radicalism that, though less virulent than that of Rev. Wright, Frank Davis (the Communist who mentored Obama in Hawaii), and Bill Ayers, is ambivalent at best about America and what it has stood for. That’s very scary.

But I’m hard-pressed to see a plausible case that Obama has resolved his identity issues by fully discarding the radical belief systems to which he was drawn both as a teenager and a mature adult. If he has genuinely done so, when did he do it and what prompted the change? His candidacy for high political office likely would have prompted only steps to conceal his ideology. His ascension to the presidency would have imposed constraints on his ability to act, but not necessarily any change in his underlying beliefs.

It’s easy to outgrow a penchant for nasty pranks. It’s difficult, though not uncommon, to overcome alcohol abuse problems. It’s common to discard radical ideologies as one matures. Romney accomplished the first feat and Bush the second. Unfortunately, we know that Obama continued to be attracted to radical ideologies during the late 1980s and 1990s, and the evidence is lacking that the attraction has ended. Perhaps it is too deeply rooted in persistent issues of identity.

JOHN adds: I hope Paul won’t mind if I add a bit of personal sub-text. As Paul says, “It’s common to discard radical ideologies as one matures.” When Paul and I were college roommates, we were both radicals; it is fair to say that we were Communists. That may sound implausibly stupid now, but it is true. As we not only got older but experienced more of the world, our views changed–”evolved,” as Barack Obama might say. You can easily document that change. We became convinced that we were horribly misguided in our youth–for example, by opposing, on radical rather than prudential grounds, the Vietnam War–and tried hard to make amends. There is no mystery about our current views; we have expressed them countless times in many forums. I don’t think it has occurred to anyone to doubt our sincerity, whether they agree with our mature judgments or not. I agree with Paul that it is weird, at best, that there is apparently no documented process whereby Barack Obama “evolved” from an anti-American radical to a person who could possibly be fit for high office.

Source:

Whoever said that Obama hasn’t acomplished anything in his first term?

WHAT AN IMPRESSIVE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS!…            

HONOLULU — Hawaii’s state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to  celebrate “Islam  Day” — over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn’t want to  honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.

The Senate’s two Republicans argued that a minority of Islamic extremists  have killed many innocents in terrorist attacks.

“I recall radical Islamists around the world cheering the horrors of 9/11.  That is the day all civilized people of all religions should remember,” said  Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings to the applause of more than 100 people gathered  in the Senate to oppose a separate issue — same-sex civil unions.

The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on  a 22-3 vote. It had previously passed the House and now goes to Republican Gov. Linda  Lingle.

The bill seeks to recognize “the rich religious, scientific, cultural and  artistic contributions” that Islam and the Islamic world have made. It does not  call for any spending or organized celebration of Islam Day.

“We are a state of tolerance. We understand that people have different  beliefs,” said Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat. “We may not all agree on every  single item and issue out there, but to say and highlight the negativity of the  Islamic people is an insult to the majority” of believers “who are good  law-abiding citizens of the world.”

But Republican Sen. Sam Slom argued that the United  States has become too sympathetic toward Islamic extremists.

“I don’t think there’s any country in the history of the world that has been  more tolerant than the United States of America, and because of that tolerance,  we’ve looked the other way a lot of times, and many thousands of our citizens  have been killed by terrorists,” said Slom, a Republican.

The lone Democrat voting against the bill opposed it on church-state  separation fears.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/hawaii-lawmakers-pass-create-islam-day/#ixzz1vdxNzYO0