John Kerry Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty – US Now One Step Away From Revolution

We are now one step away from a revolution.  The senate needs to understand that if this treaty is ratified, and the government attempts to take our guns, or force us to register them (a prelude to confiscation), the government will have irrevocably crossed a line that we WILL NOT stand by and allow them to cross. 
+



Secretary of State John Kerry Signs United Nations Gun Ban Treaty Against Wishes of U.S. Senate

by Warner Todd Huston | August 26, 2015 4:13 pm

If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has his way the United Nations will be able to say if Americans are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. He has just signed an anti-gun treaty with the United Nations that the U.S. Senate has already said it is against.

 

The treaty Kerry signed[1] without authorization from the Senate would create an un-Constitutional registry of all US gun buyers and would lead to the UN controlling American’s gun rights.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an “invasive registration scheme” by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on “end users.”

“The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.”

Once again Obama’s regime tries to end the Second Amendment by stealth.

Link to Article:  http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-signs-united-nations-gun-ban-treaty-against-wishes-of-u-s-senate/

Advertisements

Proof Obama is a Clear and Present Danger to America

Conclusive proof to all but the mentally deficient among us that Obama is a danger to America.  (Socialist) Economics aside, he is weakening us in reality, and in the eyes of our enemies, which is as bad or worse.  An enemy who views us a weak will be emboldened to strike us.  The vultures are beginning to circle in anticipation of having an American carcass to feast on soon.

Add a few of these things up and tell me that we have no cause for concern, and I’ll tell you that you need to use your Obamacare to reengage the half of your brain that is sitting idle.  China does not like us, and is in a position to destroy us economically today, and will soon be able to do so militarily as well.  Russia never did like us, and they are reemerging as a threat.  Russia is selling arms and technology to EVERYONE who hates us, i.e. Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea.  Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, and all Obama can do is complement My-mood I’m-in-a-jihad and talk about sanctions that will never happen, and will not work.  China and Russia are forming “strategic alliances,” as are Russia and Venezuela.  Obama has alienated EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that we have historically called allies, and whom we would rely on if we get into trouble.  Obama has bowed to every tin-pot dictator around the globe, and has now told them that we basically won’t do anything to stop them should they attack us.  The list goes on, and on, and on, and…

Obama apparently can’t destroy America quickly enough for his liking from within, so he is now trying to enlist the help of our enemies around the world.

For the good of America, and dare I say the world, Obama must go.


April 07, 2010

Russia Moving Fast Before ‘Arms Control’ with U.S.

By Jane Jamison

The New York Times says that President Obama’s nuclear arms reduction agreement, to be signed within a few days, will significantly alter U.S. defense policy to “substantially narrow the conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, even in self-defense.”

Is anyone in the Obama administration paying any attention to Vladimir Putin?

The Russian prime minister has just returned from his first-ever trip to Venezuela, with bear hugs for dictator-“presidente” Hugo Chávez.

Russia and Venezuela signed no fewer than 31 agreements in twelve hours. Russia has already sold Chávez $4 billion in military armaments, and now he has signed on for at least $5 billion more.

RTT NEWS:

The relationship between Moscow and Caracas has strengthened in recent years, with Venezuela buying military equipments worth $4 billion from Russia, including Sukhoi jet fighters, helicopters, tanks and assault rifles, since 2005.

During his latest visit to Venezuela, Putin had personally delivered four Russian Mi-17 helicopters President Chavez, the last of a batch of 38 military helicopters the South American country purchased from Russia in 2006.

Besides weapons, Venezuela wants nuclear power (“just for domestic purposes,” of course). Sadly, due to NASA budget cuts under Obama, it appears that Venezuela may have astronauts before America does in the future. Russia needs oil, and Putin came back with a $20-billion contract to partner with Venezuela in the Orinoco belt. Vladimir and Hugo. It’s all good.

Reuters:

We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era,” Chavez said on Thursday.

While Putin was in Venezuela, China was taking delivery of weapons from Russia on Friday.

Russia has delivered 15 batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to China, Interfax news agency reported, under a contract analysts said could be worth as much as $2.25 billion.

China is a major buyer of Russian weapons, and the two countries say they are trying to forge a strategic partnership, though senior Russian officials are privately concerned about an increasingly assertive China.

Russia has been conducting quite a business by selling the same S-300 “Favorit” (“the world’s most powerful and efficient air defense system”) to many countries hostile to the U.S. and Israel: Syria, India, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. Russia is also well underway with even more advanced versions, the S-400 and S-500 series, the latter of which can repel attacks in space. The systems began marketing on YouTube videos and news releases dated in late February of this year.

A nagging concern is the fact that Russia signed a deal in 2005 to deliver anti-aircraft, anti-missile S-300s to Iran…with delivery originally set for 2009. It is not clear if they ever were delivered. Why don’t we know?

Obviously, this has presented a huge security concern to Israel.

Haaretz News:

The S-300 is considered to be one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world, and its capabilities allow it to intercept aircraft flying 30,000 meters up, from 150 kilometers away.

Netanyahu’s government began stepping up its pressure on Putin not to go forward with the arms deliveries to Iran last summer. While Russia was taking meetings with the Israelis, Putin also said that his country’s economic crisis makes the lucrative armaments business very attractive.

A Russian ship, which may have been delivering S-300s to Iran last August, mysteriously “disappeared” between Finland and Algeria. It is believed that the ship was destroyed by the Israeli Mossad security service, which was acting on a tip. There is speculation that the arms deal was brokered with Iran by rogue Russian military “black marketeers” rather than with the Russian government.

Heritage Foundation’s Dr. Ariel Cohen warned last year that the shipments to Iran must be thwarted:

Although the sale of the S-300 to Iran is not prohibited, such a deal would be a game changer in the Middle East. Tehran could threaten U.S. and allied troops’ aerial assets in Afghanistan and Iraq if Iran were to deploy the system along its borders. Furthermore, it would boost the defense of Iran’s Bushehr reactor, which Russia has built. Finally, Tehran could also use S-300s to protect its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Arak heavy water plant, and other components of its sprawling nuclear and missile complex.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the region as Iran uses its nuclear arsenal to foster its hegemony in the Persian Gulf and beyond and would likely trigger a regional nuclear arms race. Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would not sit idly while Tehran is building its nuclear arsenal.

In mid-February this year, after another eyeball-to-eyeball session with Putin in Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that there was an agreement to hold off on the S-300 deliveries to Iran…for now.

The Russians, however say that the delay is due only to “technical difficulties.” It wasn’t made clear when those “difficulties” might be cleared up and the shipments might proceed.

It may not make a whit of difference. While Obama and Secretary of State Clinton dither over sanctions and partnering countries, Iran sneers at the lack of foreign policy fortitude and races to a finish line of its own making.

It appears that while Vladimir Putin is allowing himself “official deniability” of any deal to directly arm Iran, the technology has nonetheless somehow made its way to Tehran. Just a few days ago,  Free Republic’s sources quoted Iranian military officials who say they have developed their own “indigenous” versions of the S-300.

Investor’s Business Daily now calls Secretary of State Clinton the “Bull in the China Shop Diplomat.” She seems overly preoccupied with micro-managing Israel’s apartment-building plans and picking fights with Canada over abortion health care policy, while ignoring such elephants in the room as Iran building nuclear weapons and Russia arming America’s enemies.

The Wall Street Journal opines that “Obama Seems Unserious about a Nuclear Iran.” If the Obama administration has accepted the inevitability of nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why would it cringe at Iran also being militarily able to demolish the Israeli fighter jets which come to destroy the nukes?

Take it a step further, and what assurance does Israel have at all anymore that the United States of Barack Obama will defend her if the worst comes from Iran?

Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch, a Democrat and a Jew who supported Barack Obama’s campaign, recently wrote an editorial in an Israeli newspaper, saying “The Trust is Gone.”

Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.

Vladmir Putin has already proven once to Israel that he cannot be trusted. Kim Zigfeld wrote in American Thinker of Russia’s criss-cross hypocrisies of human rights violations, terrorism, and military aggression, while selling weapons of mass destruction to every enemy of this country.

In the meantime, Iran’s nuclear negotiator has just come back from a meeting on “energy” with China. China still refuses to join the U.S. in sanctions against Iran.

While Russians and Iranians are taking intercontinental flights cementing deals with our enemies, President Obama is rolling Easter eggs and playing baseball. Still feeling a headwind from passage of the health care bill, no doubt.

Obama is scheduled April 8 to sign a treaty with Russian president Medvedev to reduce nuclear weapons of the two countries “by 30 percent.”

Barack Obama presented his tepidly-received nuclear disarmament plan exactly one year ago today in Prague. It would appear, confirming our worst fears, that the only place in the “world with no nuclear weapons” will be the United States if we stay on the bobble-headed foreign policy course of Barack Obama.

Jane Jamison is publisher of the conservative news/commentary blog UNCOVERAGE.net.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/russia_moving_fast_before_arms.html at April 07, 2010 – 01:40:01 PM CDT

+


April 07, 2010

Obama’s Nuclear Poser Review

By Pamela Geller

Barack Obama announced Monday what the New York Times called a “new strategy”: his Nuclear Posture Review. He is narrowing the conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. For the first time since the U.S. became a nuclear power, the president of the United States has explicitly vowed that we will not use nukes even against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us, or take us down with a massive cyber-attack — as long as those states are obeying the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

He also overruled his own Secretary of Defense and said that no new nuclear weapons would be developed. Our aging, rusting arsenal is enough.

The New York Times lapdog reporting on this was pure Walter Duranty:

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

Obama is effectively saying to our enemies, bring it on, we won’t fight ya — leaving us naked and vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran’s devout mullahcracy is building its nuclear arsenal with the objective of establishing a global Islamic state. And what would Obama do about Iran’s nukes? He came out for a U.N. resolution on sanctions — one “that has bite,” in other words, one that will somehow be different from all the sanctions that are already in place. But he warned that it probably wouldn’t work: “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior…there’s no light switch in this process.”

I am actually embarrassed for my nation.

Obama is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history than the age of Obama? Yes, there were very dangerous periods (the Civil War, World War I, World War II), but during those times of great crisis, the steward of this nation was always a patriot, a freedom-lover — an American. As I explain in my forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon & Schuster), Obama, in contrast, is a socialist internationalist who clearly despises this country and the whole idea of America, the first moral nation built on the principle of freedom itself in human history.

He himself said it in April 2009. During a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20), a reporter asked Obama: “[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?”

Obama offered no avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, America is nothing special. Just another country. Dick Cheney summed it up: “There’s never been a nation like the United States of America in world history, and yet when you have a president who goes around and bows to his hosts and then proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing. That says to me this is a guy who doesn’t fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in.”

Of course, Obama knows what buttons to push. He assured us: “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.” And now his cover in this subversive new suicide pact is his desire to make the world into a “nuclear free zone.”

Who does he think he’s kidding? What despot will ever freely and willingly give up his power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This policy is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn’t a new strategy. This is surrender. He is making America into the laughingstock of the civilized world and the bullseye of the Axis of Evil.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obamas_nuclear_poser_review.html at April 07, 2010 – 09:31:45 AM CDT

+


Is Hillary Roundrod Clinton Eligible to be Sec State?

I want that job, so just wave your wand and make me eligible.”  That’s the Hillary and Obama mindset.  I guess we’ll see if the constitution still has meaning anymore.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124614

Hillary’s eligibility challenged in Supreme Court

Can political branch evade ‘clear and precise language’ of Constitution?

Posted: February 09, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the “political branches of the government” can “evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative ‘fix.'”

The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s eligibility to be secretary of state.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

The case brought on behalf of a career government employee
outlines how during Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.

The complaint challenges whether a resolution adopted by Congress as Clinton was preparing for the position that rolled back the compensation to the level of Jan. 1, 2007, could remove the obstacle to Clinton’s appointment.

Make Solar Panels at Home in 1 Day

WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Hillary’s eligibility challenged in Supreme Court
Can political branch evade ‘clear and precise language’ of Constitution?
Posted: February 09, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the “political branches of the government” can “evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative ‘fix.'”

The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s eligibility to be secretary of state.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

The case brought on behalf of a career government employee
outlines how during Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.

You’ve waited for it! Now today only you can get Jerome Corsi’s acclaimed best-seller, “The Obama Nation,” for the amazing price of just $4.95!

The complaint challenges whether a resolution adopted by Congress as Clinton was preparing for the position that rolled back the compensation to the level of Jan. 1, 2007, could remove the obstacle to Clinton’s appointment.

(Story continues below)

WND reported when Judicial Watch filed its notice that it would bring the arguments to the Supreme Court, and now the brief in the case has been submitted.

The lawsuit asserts Clinton is ineligible because she was serving as a senator from New York immediately prior to her selection by President Obama as secretary of state.

The case notes the text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. …

… The newly filed brief states “the salary of the U.S. Secretary of State was increased three times during Mrs. Clinton’s second term in the U.S. Senate. A subsequent ‘rollback’ of the salary by Congress does nothing to remedy this ineligibility for office, as no such ‘work around’ is authorized by the Constitution and cannot alter the fact that these increases in salary occurred.”

“The Joint Resolution did not and cannot change the historical fact that the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office … increased during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate.

“At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution,” the brief states.

The case raises two key questions for the Supreme Court:

* Whether an officer of the United States, when placed in a position where he must either violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment, has standing to maintain a challenge to the appointment of a constitutionally ineligible superior.

* And whether members of Congress who are otherwise ineligible for appointment to an office in the executive branch under the plain language of Article I, section 6 of the Constitution, can have their eligibility restored by an act of Congress.

“The Supreme Court has an obligation to settle the Ineligibility Clause issue once and for all,” said Fitton. “If our government and courts will not observe even the plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, then we are cut adrift from the anchor of law and liberty and the rule of law is in jeopardy. We hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to vindicate the Constitution.”

(Complete article HERE)


Obama Guilty of War Crimes; Employs Weapon of Mass Corruption

See this shocking video of the aftermath of Obama’s preemptive use on Pakistan of the MOAB, or Mother of All B…… , ur, uh, well just watch the video.  You’ll get the point.

Alternate Video Link HERE (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u_s_condemned_for_pre_emptive_use)

Iran has fissile materials for bomb

We don’t have the guts to stop Mr. I’minajihad. I guess it’s up to Israel to protect themselves and the rest of the world from these nut-jobs.

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press
March 2, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a “very, very bad outcome” should Tehran move forward with a bomb.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the assessment when questioned in a broadcast interview about a recent report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the state of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which can create nuclear fuel and may be sufficiently advanced to produce the core of warheads.

Mullen was asked if Iran now had enough fissile material to make a bomb. He responded, “We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I’ve believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.”

Mullen’s spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said Mullen was referring only to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding that Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

Experts differ on whether that stockpile is enough to allow Iran to further refine the material and arm one weapon, should it choose to do so. Experts also disagree about how long it would take Iran to make the leap to a deployable weapon. Iran is continuing an accelerated nuclear development program.

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

“There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government” on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, “We just don’t know” exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

“We are concerned they are getting close” to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are “not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time” for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report “confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program.”

Iran, now subjected to various penalties by the U.N., the U.S. and others over its nuclear program, denies it wants to build a bomb. It asserts its program is intended to provide the country with the homegrown ability to generate electricity from nuclear reactors.

So far, the U.S. has not relented in its claims that Iran has ambitions to join the club of nuclear-armed nations. Mullen seemed to restate that position in his remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He was not asked to elaborate.

Under an international nuclear treaty it has signed, Iran has the right to develop a civilian program for the nuclear generation of electricity. But any such program must be open to international inspection. Iran has balked at that after it became known in past years that the country had hidden portions of its nuclear effort that could be linked to a weapons program.

At issue now is Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts. The Bush administration insisted that was a precursor to making weapons-grade materials. President Barack Obama has sought to change course with Iran, offering diplomatic engagement in a bid to prove Tehran has more to lose by ignoring the wishes of other countries than it has to gain through its nuclear efforts.

“The question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us and so on if they walk away from that program,” Gates said. “Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home.”

Days after Obama announced his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Mullen and Gates made clear their support for the commander in chief’s approach.

Mullen said he was comfortable with the decision, while noting he was reluctant to talk about “winning and losing” in Iraq. Rather, he said, the conditions are in place for the Baghdad government to successfully take control of the country.

Mullen said Obama listened extensively to the American military leadership and U.S. commanders in Iraq before announcing withdrawal. Under the president’s order, the–2,000 U.S. forces in Iraq would be drawn down to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by the 2010 date. All forces would be withdrawn by the last day of 2011.

Gates said he thought it was “fairly remote” that conditions in Iraq would change enough to alter significantly the Obama plan. He said the president has said he retains the authority to change a plan if it’s in the national security interests of the United States.

“Our soldiers will be consolidated into a limited number of bases in order to provide protection for themselves and for civilians who are out working in the Iraqi neighborhoods and countryside as well,” Gates said. “The risk to our troops will be substantially less than certainly was last year, and it has, has gradually declined.”

Gates appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while Mullen also was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday.”
——
Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Washington and Robert Burns in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, contributed to this story.

Obama Sells U.S. To China Inc.

Obama is selling our nations long term future for short term political gain. Continuing to pile up mountains of debt that must be financed overseas is a sure ticket on the express to socialism and national ruin. In one stroke of the pen Obama has doubled all of our nations debt from the beginning of our history through G.W. Bush.

Obama Sells U.S. To China Inc.

By Cliff Kincaid
February 23, 2009

The truth is starting to seep out. Because of the need for more money to finance the latest bailout―the Obama economic stimulus plan―America is going further in debt to the Chinese Communists. Our country is officially being sold to the highest bidder. And we have striking confirmation of this fact from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The good news is that a correspondent for the mainstream media―Wyatt Andrews of CBS News―has figured this out and has managed to get on the air with his terrifying findings. Andrews’ report on the Friday CBS Evening News with Katie Couric was direct and to the point. Clinton is in China to beg for a handout.

“The truth is the Administration needs China’s help. America’s stimulus is very expensive and the U.S. wants China to help finance it,” Andrews reported. This is what America has become―a country that sends its Secretary of State abroad to beg for money from foreigners. In this case, it’s a communist dictatorship that forces women to have abortions, tortures Christians, and threatens the freedom and democratic government of Taiwan.

So the cost of the “stimulus” is more sacrifice of American independence and sovereignty, as well as our own values, ideals, and commitment to human freedom. It is a sad day both for America and China.

Clinton was shown saying, “We are relying on the Chinese government to continue to buy our debt.” The almighty dollar takes precedence over everything else, even as it falls in value and the dangers of hyperinflation and national bankruptcy loom. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that pandering to the Chinese will not solve anything. This policy, set in motion by big banks and corporations and pursued by Democratic and Republican Administrations, is what got us into this predicament in the first place.

Clinton’s comments, which concern the overall economic policy of the new administration, are far more significant than the Obama mortgage plan. Clinton is getting to the heart of the issue―how the mortgage plan and the stimulus are being financed.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs expressed irritation last week that CNBC commentator Rick Santelli went into a rant over the prospect of forcing American taxpayers to underwrite the bad mortgages of deadbeats and others who are unable to pay their mortgages. But Santelli only touched on one small part of the problem.

Where’s the outrage over the pro-China policy that spans several administrations, and which has benefited his corporate bosses at General Electric, of permitting the communist dictatorship in Beijing to have the upper hand in global trade relations? All that Santelli has to do to understand this problem is attend a GE annual meeting and listen to the complaints of the GE workers losing their jobs to China. But don’t expect to see anything about that on CNBC, NBC, or MSNBC.

If you want more information on this travesty, please go to the website (web site) and learn how GE is going “green” which has the effect of shipping American jobs to China. If Santelli did a rant about that, you can bet he wouldn’t be on the air again.

We were already in terrible shape under the Bush Administration because of a mysterious financial collapse apparently caused by illegal manipulation of our markets, but now the communists have us completely over a barrel because the Obama Administration, with the acquiescence of Congress, recklessly decided to spend even more money that we don’t have. Under the circumstances, this is criminal negligence.

Mrs. Clinton is officially stating what everyone should know is the truth. She deserves credit for being brutally honest. America has become a subsidiary of China Inc. In order for the U.S. to stay afloat, we have to depend on Beijing to finance a bailout. But the other major problem, of course, is that the stimulus is not a bailout in any real sense of the word. It depends on more government debt and borrowing at a huge cost of being more indebted to the Chinese. So the bailout is really digging our nation’s grave deeper.

To make matters even worse, as the Andrews report made clear, the cost will include the jobs that the Obama Administration says will be created by the stimulus. He interviewed an American manufacturer about the loss of American jobs caused by China’s trade practices, who said that the “cheating” in global trade has cost millions of American manufacturing jobs.

In the end, the only “jobs” that will be created or “saved,” as Obama likes to say, will likely be those benefiting from spending the federal money that the federal government doesn’t have. Most of them work for government at all levels.

Productive private sector manufacturing jobs will not be created―and cannot be―because despite their campaign promises, neither Obama nor Hillary will do anything about those unfair Chinese trade practices, such as the currency manipulation, that make Chinese goods artificially cheap and American goods more expensive.

The Andrews report, which caught me completely by surprise on a newscast that tends to portray the new Administration in completely flattering tones, was absolutely blistering in contrasting what Obama and Clinton had said during the campaign and what they are doing now.

“Both the man who became the President and his future Secretary of State told the voters they would make the [trade] cheating go away,” Andrews reported. He showed candidate Obama saying that he would do everything in his power to stop China from manipulating its currency and Hillary saying that she would “aggressively crack down on China’s unfair trade practices.” These claims were shown to be empty and abandoned campaign promises. We should have assumed that would be the case.

Andrews asked Secretary of State Clinton about this and “she explained that times have changed.” Clinton said, “That was at a different time when we weren’t facing the kind of difficult situations we face today.” Translation: we need their money and we are in no position to demand or criticize anything. These Clinton comments preceded Andrews’ remarks about the cost of the stimulus and the perceived need to get China to help finance it.

As we had noted in a previous column (web site) about the Administration’s so-called economic program, Clinton was going to China for the purpose of getting Chinese money to finance the stimulus. Now we have it all on the record. Her trip was designed to reinforce Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s private conversations on this topic with Chinese officials.

The land of the free and the home of the brave has now become the land of the quivering milquetoast, in awe of an emerging Communist giant that our big banks and corporations, as well as our government, have built into an economic superpower.

President Obama apparently sees nothing wrong with this. Indeed, during the campaign he praised China’s staging of the Olympic Games, saying their infrastructure was impressive and was something the U.S. might consider emulating.

Now, with Hillary Clinton having signaled to the Chinese dictators that we will beg for their money and ignore unfair trade practices and even human rights violations, it will be left up to President Obama to seal the deal. When he gives his State of the Union-like speech to Congress and the American people on Tuesday night, he will in reality be auditioning for a front-row seat on the board of directors of China Inc. Don’t expect to hear anything critical of the butchers in Beijing.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Clinton acted on concerns of husband’s donors

Corruption and the Clintons in the same breath? How could that be? Hillary will still likely sail through her confirmation as Sec State. No democrat will oppose her, and few of the spineless republicans will either.

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband’s donors
By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press
January 13, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State appointee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton’s foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raises new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband’s fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator’s government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.

Clinton was to begin her confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million — including millions from foreign governments — to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton’s foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.

“Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor,” spokesman Philippe Reines said. “In these instances, she was doing what the people of New York elected her to do: Work hard on the issues of importance to them.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Foundation both declined to answer questions about whether the senator attempted to step away from issues directly affecting donors to her husband’s charity, and whether the foundation tried to screen out money from those on whose issues the senator had intervened.

“Generally, through a combination of rigorous adherence to Senate and FEC income and asset disclosure rules, coupled with the voluntary and unprecedented release of the names of every single Foundation supporter since its inception, the Clintons are by far the most financially transparent former first couple in American history,” Reines said.

Sen. Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications. PAETEC’s chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday. The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood’s membership in CGI in September 2007, and the Chesonis foundation paid $20,000 for it in March 2008, Wood said.

The Chesonis Family Foundation made a $10 million pledge last May to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for solar energy research, meeting Wood’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to act on a project, Wood said.

Wood said the Chesonis foundation was unaware of the senator’s letter to the FCC on the PAETEC issue and didn’t have any contact with the senator’s office.

PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations to the Clinton foundation. PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC on its behalf, he said.

“Yes, PAETEC feels strongly that a competitive telecom environment is in the best interests of New York businesses and consumers,” Muller wrote in an e-mail to the AP. “PAETEC has petitioned numerous elected officials in the markets which we serve in an effort to retain the spirit of the Telecom Act of 1996.” The issue is still pending at the FCC, and PAETEC remains involved in it, Muller said.

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. is also a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, company spokeswoman Amy Rose said. Merck joined CGI in 2006, when dues were $15,000, and also was a member in 2007 and in 2008, when membership dues rose to $20,000. As part of its commitment to CGI, Merck sponsors public health initiatives around the world, Rose said. Merck joined CGI on its own initiative, she said.

Sen. Clinton wrote a November 2005 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urging approval of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Merck applied in December 2005 for approval of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and the vaccine was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. Merck is still seeking approval for use in older women, Rose said.

Rose said Merck’s participation in the Clinton Global Initiative was unrelated to Sen. Clinton’s letter. Merck didn’t communicate with Clinton or her office about its HPV vaccine and was unaware of her letter before it was sent, Rose said.

Another letter involved an issue important to Barr Laboratories. Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote to Leavitt in August 2005 urging that “science, not politics” guide the agency and “that a decision be brought swiftly on Plan B’s application.” Leavitt’s office described the Clinton letter as pertaining to Barr’s application for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive also called the morning-after pill.

Barr Laboratories gave $10,001 to $25,000 to Clinton foundation, the charity’s donor list shows. Barr joined the Clinton Global Initiative in April 2007, spokeswoman Carol Cox said. Cox didn’t comment on Clinton’s letter.

Several of the letters involve issues directly affecting KeySpan Corp., the energy company now known as National Grid. KeySpan didn’t ask the senator to intervene, and had no communication with her office about its later donations to the Clinton foundation, company spokesman Chris Mostyn said.

KeySpan joined the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007 because it wanted to become involved in the climate change issue, Mostyn said. KeySpan paid $15,000 for its membership in 2007 and $20,000 for 2008, Mostyn said.

Clinton joined several other members of Congress from New York in February 2003 asking the Commerce Department to consider an appeal by Islander East, a limited liability company formed by subsidiaries of KeySpan Energy and another company, to build a natural gas pipeline to serve Connecticut, New York City and Long Island, N.Y.

Clinton and the other lawmakers wanted the Commerce Department to overturn the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection’s determination that Islander East’s pipeline plan was inconsistent with the state’s coastal zone management program. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and other Connecticut lawmakers wrote to Commerce urging denial of Islander East’s appeal.

Clinton earlier wrote to the Long Island Power Authority and to KeySpan urging them to consider the modernization of KeySpan’s New York power plants. Her letter in June 2002 offered her help on the issue. Also in 2002, Clinton wrote the federal government letters on the natural gas Millennium Pipeline Project in which KeySpan was involved, urging an extension of a deadline for public comment and forwarding information on route alternatives.

Mostyn said KeySpan didn’t ask Clinton to get involved in the issues. The Millennium Pipeline began commercial operations in December, the Islander East project is on hold due to Connecticut’s rejection of permits, and the company is working with the Long Island Power Authority to study power plant modernization, he said.

%d bloggers like this: