Written by Kurt Hyde | The New American

Kim Westbrook Strach, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, released startling figures to North Carolina’s Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee. The statistics were compiled by comparing North Carolina voter registration data and voter history with similar data from other states. This data was collected via the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program.

35,750 voters who voted in the 2012 general election in North Carolina had exact matches on first name, last name and date of birth with voters who voted in at least one other participating state in the 2012 general election.

Where all or part of Social Security Numbers were also available 765 voters who met the criteria above also had exact matches on the last four digits of their Social Security Numbers.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is investigating. In an interview with The New American, a spokesman explained they were aware that not all the above cases are necessarily election fraud. Certainly, at least a few of these voter registrations are for people with common names and coincidentally were born on the same day. Another non-fraud cause could be clerical errors by election workers accidentally marking the wrong person as having voted.

The New American asked if the suspected multiple votes were via early voting, absentee ballots, or voting in person on election day. That information is not available yet, but will hopefully be gathered as part of the investigation that is underway.

If a suspected case of duplicate voting involves in-person voting on election day and the places are a great distance away from each other, it could be an indication that someone is voting using someone else’s name, possibly without that person’s knowledge. In electoral fraud circles, these people are known as repeaters because they vote repeatedly in an election.

If any of these suspected duplicate votes are via absentee ballots and the mailing address is close to another related address, such as someone voting from his home in one state and voting absentee in another state via his work address or a nearby political party headquarters, it could be evidence of fraud.

Even in cases of fraud, it is not necessarily fraud by the person whose name is used. The New American has interviewed numerous people in the past regarding electoral fraud. In one such case, a man reviewed a voter registration list and noticed the name of a friend who had moved to a different town a number of years prior, yet the records indicated he was voting regularly. When the man who moved was contacted by his friend, he had no idea his old voter registration had not been deleted or that someone had been voting using his name for years.

Some Duplicate Registrations Were Not Related to Multiple Votes

The interstate cross check also found duplicate voter registrations that were not associated with double voting, at least not for now, but they have the potential to be used for fraud in the future. in North Carolina, 155,692 registered voters had exact matches on first name, last name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security Numbers and the latest voter registration activity was not in North Carolina. The vast majority of these duplicate voter registrations can be attributed to people who have moved from North Carolina, and the old registration records haven’t been deleted yet. These are usually fixed by a simple voter registration clean-up.

The Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program

The Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, also known by the nickname The Kansas Project, was initiated in Kansas in 2005 under Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh when Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri agreed to share voter registration data. The first interstate crosscheck was in 2006. When current Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach assumed office in 2011, the number of states participating had grown to 14. It is now 28 states.

How Thorough Will the Investigations Be?

Thorough investigations of electoral fraud have toppled corrupt politicians before. William “Boss” Tweed of Tammany Hall infamy was brought down within a few years after the U.S. Congress investigated the electoral frauds in New York City in the 1868 presidential election. The Tammany Hall fraudsters were kept out of office for quite few years after that because of two anti-fraud measures in the election laws. 1) All voter registrations had to be in by 30 days before an election. That allowed sufficient time for the voter registration lists to be checked. 2) The New York City Police Department canvassed the entire city verifying every voter registration during that 30-day period.

It is not necessary that the vetting of voter registrations be done by law-enforcement agencies prior to elections. Any government agency will do. As long as the process is open and concerned citizens have access to voter registration information to ensure the vetting is done right, election fraud based on fraudulent voter registrations can be minimized.

Those who object to investigating these potential frauds because they don’t believe the frauds exist would do well to encourage such investigations. If the fraud truly doesn’t exist, a thorough investigation will prove them right.


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.”

Appointed in 1986, Antonin Scalia is the longest-serving justice currently on the Court.

Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

The justice was invited by the UT law school to present its annual “Rose Lecture,” and discussed events throughout his career such as his 1989 decision to rule with the majority that flag-burning was constitutionally protected speech. Scalia was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

“You’re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag,” Scalia told the standing-room-only crowd, according to the News Sentinel.

Scalia said that the justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House. He also expressed his theory of originalism, or that the U.S. Constitution is a fixed law and is not open to evolution or change over time.

“The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake,” the justice said, according to the report. “It’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.”


The US Supreme Court is Pushing Forward the Legalization of Bribery

By Prof. Lawrence Davidson | Global Research

U.S. pundits decry countries like Iran as undemocratic for having a screening process for candidates to high office. But U.S. politicians must pass muster with wealthy donors to be considered serious candidates, a system that the Supreme Court just made worse.

On April 2, the U.S. Supreme took another step toward the destruction of campaign finance reform with a five-to-four decision known as McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission.

One gets the feeling that this is part of a general campaign, waged by class-biased, ideologically committed conservatives, against government regulation, which they see as somehow a violation of their constitutional rights. As if to suggest that this is so, the Court majority rationalized its decision in the name of “free speech.”

What does this ruling do? First, the ruling removes limitations on overall campaign donations given in an election cycle. The wealthy can now sit down and write checks to unlimited numbers of candidates and political organizations and thereby make themselves indispensable in an electoral process dependent on the raising of large sums, particularly for television advertising.

Indeed, in this way the influence and demands of wealthy donors continue to be more powerful and persuasive than the solicitations of ordinary constituents whose interests the elected official is pledged to serve. In other words, McCutcheon vs. FEC pushed forward the process of legalizing bribery within our political system – a phenomenon which already is well along in its development.

Second, the ruling corrupts the notion of free speech by equating it with the use of money. Thus, the Court majority confuses free speech with that very act of bribery noted above. They seem to be pretending that we are dealing with the transparent efforts of constituents seeking to convince their political representatives of a certain point of view.

This is an illusion. We are dealing with donor individuals and organizations funneling millions of dollars to politicians in need of small fortunes just to maintain their professional positions, and to do so in exchange for political and legislative favors. That is the exercise of free speech only if you equate it with the suborning of elected officials.

It is hard to believe that the five Supreme Court justices who voted in the majority do not know this. And if they do, they are guilty of using the Constitution to rationalize criminal behavior.

Specific Flaws

Argument One -  “Contributing money to a candidate is an exercise of an individual’s right to participate in the electoral process through both political expression and political association.”

In taking this line of argument the justices ignore an established principle that operates in the social (as well as physical) realm: that is, quantity can shape quality and in so doing “act as a causal mechanism in social behavior.” For instance, you can say that contributing of money to campaigns and parties is an inherent part of the right to political participation. But the quality of that right, that is its consequence, is dependent on the quantity of the donation and its source.

Thus, this form of political participation has different consequences if a multitude of citizens give small amounts to various candidates and parties than if a few citizens, cleverly bundling their donations, give millions. The former is unlikely to skew an election through overwhelming, and often distorting, media advertising or to compromise the integrity of the candidate once elected.

The latter is almost certain to do these things. In other words, so much money coming from a few sources into an electoral process dominated by the need for money transforms donations into bribes and payoffs. This transformation is exactly what effective campaign finance reform is designed to prevent.

Argument Two – Restricting contributions is like restricting the number of endorsements a newspaper can make. “Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”

The problem with this assertion is that newspapers do not usually trade in favors. Big donors almost always do. Newspapers usually do not expect those they endorse to change the regulatory environment in which the newspaper operates. Big donors almost always do.

By making the comparison between newspaper endorsements and the actions of large donors, the justices are making a false analogy. They are mixing apples and oranges.

Argument Three -  “Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties.”

This statement contains one dubious assumption and one misstatement of fact. First, assuming that “spending large sums of money in connection with elections” is not done in an “effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties” and therefore does not result in “quid pro quo corruption” is, at best, dangerously naive.

Do these justices really believe that the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and a host of corporations and special interest organizations would spend millions of dollars in an election cycle apart from “an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties”?

The claim that “an individual who spends large sums” does not “garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties” is just wrong. What do these justices think the American Rifle Association or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is doing if not buying influence and access?

It is odd that these justices, who undoubtedly recognize that they live in a capitalist country where just about everything is up for sale, would so blatantly pretend that politicians and elections are not also available for purchase.

Formula for Disaster

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, one of the sponsors of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, predicts that the recent Supreme Court decision will result in “major scandals in campaign finance contributions” and these, in turn, “will cause reform.”

Scandals there are sure to be. But I am not sure about reform. Past “major scandals” have not necessarily led to reform. In the United States, numerous school shootings have shocked the public but not resulted in the reform of the nation’s gun laws. Recent financial crises have led to recession and government bailouts for savings and loans, banks and mortgage houses, but have not resulted in sufficient regulatory reform to prevent a recurrence of these problems.

Therefore, campaign finance scandals may not yield the reform Sen. McCain foresees. All these scandals do indicate one thing, though, and that is that the Supreme Court justices don’t know what they are talking about when they deny that big money contributions are not corrupting.

Let us keep in mind that the U.S. citizenry is largely estranged from politics and ignorant of the workings of their national economy. Such indifference and ignorance allows power to default to the minority who are unethical enough and wealthy enough to not only buy politicians, but to buy public opinion through the manipulation of the media – a particular specialty of people like Rupert Murdoch.

This concentration of power usually results in periods of wholesale deregulation of business and politics leading inevitably to political unrest and economic ruin of one degree or another. Yet it is only when these consequences become so disastrous (I am talking here on the scale of the 1929 depression or the race riots of the 1960s) that the public’s backlash brings about significant reform.

And even then the nature of such events is cyclical. We have forgotten the corruption of the Gilded Age and the hardship of the Great Depression. Some of us have even forgotten the racist nature of our politics prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

So you should let your children know they may see these troubles again in the near future. Maybe they will be able to handle them better than we are.


Despite standoff defeat, feds assert case will continue

Paul Joseph Watson

Despite being forced to release hundreds of seized cattle after an astounding standoff on Saturday, the Bureau of Land Management has vowed to continue its pursuit of Cliven Bundy, asserting that no deal has been made to cease its case against the Nevada cattle rancher.

Amazing scenes unfolded on Saturday as Bundy supporters and cowboys on horseback faced off against armed BLM agents and police, demanding that hundreds of cattle seized by the BLM over a grazing rights dispute be released from a nearby corral.

With feds and law enforcement at one point threatening to shoot protesters dead, Bundy supporters fearlessly held their ground and then began advancing on the corral.

Around 380 cattle were eventually released and BLM agents left the scene, a remarkable victory for property rights activists against big government. However, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ as it is now being called is unlikely to mark the end of the saga.

Despite Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie announcing on Saturday that the BLM had agreed to cease its operation against Bundy, the BLM now asserts that it played no part in the deal and will continue to pursue Bundy “administratively and judicially” for the $1 million in grazing fees it claims Bundy owes the feds.

Since Bundy has steadfastly refused to pay the fee, offering instead to pay it to Clark County, the feds will have no option other than to send armed men to arrest Bundy or restart the operation to confiscate his cattle. Such action will then prompt thousands of Americans to rally to Bundy’s defense just as they did last week, threatening another standoff.

“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press, adding, “The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything, there was no deal we made.”

This completely contradicts reports on Saturday which stated that, “A deal has been reached between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management.”

In another twist, private investigator Doug Hagmann claims a Department of Homeland Security source told him that the federal stand down on Saturday was merely a temporary measure designed to “hoodwink” Bundy supporters into “believing that the situation is being resolved”.

Hagmann says his source told him the plan to release the cattle had been devised the day before and that Saturday’s activities were focused around a military assessment of the strength of the “resistance” shown by Bundy supporters.

Whatever the truth, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ represents a seminal moment in the modern American liberty movement.

However, the notion that it represents the end of the federal government’s pursuit of Cliven Bundy is a naive conclusion to draw.


William Norman Grigg
Lew Rockwell Blog

When the ATF attacked the Branch Davidians outside Waco in February 1993, the expectation was a quick and painless victory over an eccentric religious sect and a public relations boost for the scandal-plagued agency. This is why the assault was code-named “Showtime.”

Image: Bundy Ranch Standoff (Infowars).

The Davidians, however, refused to follow the script. When the ATF stormtroopers arrived at the sect’s sanctuary at Mt. Carmel, David Koresh – who had known of the impending assault, and released an ATF informant rather than holding him as a hostage — attempted to de-escalate the confrontation, only to be answered by a murderous volley of gunfire. Rather than allowing themselves to be shackled or slaughtered, the Davidians stood their ground, killing four of the assailants in a morally unassailable exercise of self-defense and forcing the ATF to retreat.

Because the Regime cannot countenance resistance, the FBI laid siege to the Davidians for 51 days before the final assault that left of scores of Davidians dead from fire, asphyxiation, and gunfire.

In 1973, a band of Sioux activists at Wounded Knee held off the FBI and the US military for 71 days, demanding respect for their rights under treaty law, accountability for the corruption of federally installed tribal dictator Dickie Wilson, and investigation of unsolved murders. The Feds replied with the largest domestic military deployment since the last confrontation at Wounded Knee in December 1890, an undisguised slaughter carried out by the vengeful Seventh Cavalry that amounted to an American Babi Yar.

In response to the 1973 protests, Armed FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, SWAT teams, and teams of Wilson’s paramilitary “GOON Squad” formed an iron ring around the village of Wounded Knee. Colonel Vic Jackson, head of the Pentagon’s Civil Disorder Management School, was called upon by the FBI to implement the notorious “Operation Garden Plot” martial law blueprint. The FBI’s plan called for the Army would invade and “pacify” the village before the FBI went in to “arrest” whoever might survive the onslaught. Armored Personnel Carriers were on hand to deal with what were described as “bunkers” (and were, in fact, root cellars). Phantom F-4 jets flew low-altitude reconnaissance runs over the town.

At one point, the Bureau ordered the media to leave the area and then warned the occupiers to send out their women and children. The anticipated massacre might well have been thwarted by the presence of local white residents whom the FBI called “hostages” – but who were there voluntarily in order to protect their supposed captors from the Feds.

Over the next two years, the Feds were unable to convict the “ringleaders” of the Wounded Knee protest in court. So the FBI, following its COINTELPRO playbook, abetted internecine conflicts within the Indian resistance and carried out a campaign of low-intensity warfare that left several innocent people dead.

In 2003, when the Power Elite in Washington stretched out its hand a second time to confer the blessings on “democracy” on the people of Iraq, the city of Fallujah was one of the first targets of this exercise in murderous generosity. Bridges were bombed, schools and homes were seized by Washington’s armed missionaries of armed benevolence, and Blackwater mercenaries abused and killed innocent people with arrogant abandon.

Fallujah residents reacted by killing several Blackwater operators and organizing small but effective resistance cells. This defiant ingratitude provoked the stern chastisement of Washington, which encircled the city and visited Carthaginian destruction on it.

Like any bully, the Regime in Washington chooses its battles carefully, generally avoiding fights with opponents capable of fighting back. But it will not accept defeat when clearly in the wrong. This is something Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters should remember.


Nevada cattle rancher ‘a hero for liberty’

By Barbara Simpson | World Net Daily

Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” had it right, back in the ’70s, when he said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Updating it a bit, “We have met the enemy, and he is U.S.”

When Barack Obama declared he intended to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” I doubt that many – or perhaps any – Americans realized what that really meant.

Well, he’s in his second term, and Americans have been finding out: Essentially, the government would henceforth be against the people.

We’ve seen our rights being shaved away, but it’s most clearly evident in the grim reality of the current massive invasion and confiscation of private property in Nevada by military and armed police.

Some likened it to Tiananmen Square – government might and military against citizens. That’s exactly what’s been happening to 67-year-old Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his family, his ranch and his cattle.

In China, it was military tanks intimidating and killing civilians.

In Clark County, Nev., the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, used more than 200 heavily armed federal troops, attack dogs, tasers, helicopters, military vehicles and fully armed snipers to threaten, intimidate and threaten to shoot and kill the owners of a cattle ranch all the while confiscating their cattle.

At one point, several members of the family were stopped on a nearby public highway while one of Mr. Bundy’s sons, Dave, was taking video of the cattle roundup.

Loudspeakers warned him to stop. Eleven BLM vehicles converged on them, each with at least two armed agents. In addition, four snipers had their guns trained on them.

A police dog was turned on Dave and he was jammed to the ground; then he was tased and his camera confiscated. Ultimately, he was arrested.

Cliven Bundy attempted to call local authorities for help but was told to hang up the phone or he’d be arrested.

In another incident, family members were attempting to see if any of the confiscated cattle had been killed when agents surrounded them, tasers and dogs were used again and Cliven’s sister, a cancer survivor, was thrown to the ground by a BLM ranger.

The Bundy family has been has been ranching that land since 1887 when their great-grandfather bought the rights to the allotment. It has been in the family since, with water and other rights bought and paid for as well as road and fencing they paid for. These land rights are called preemptive rights and over the years Cliven Bundy paid grazing fees, as did other ranchers.

There was never any problem until it became clear the BLM was using its power to force out other ranchers.

There were 54 ranches in Clark County.

Now there’s just one left: the Bundy ranch

Mr. Bundy has refused to pay the BLM for rights to use land, which they’re trying to take from him.

He says they’re using the fee issue to drive him out, and he doesn’t believe the federal government has the right to land that belongs to the state of Nevada. He says he’ll pay the fees to Clark County but not to the feds.

It’s been a court battle for 20 years, finally coming to a head last week as armed troops moved in.

It’s a classic case of a tyrannical government using its power against average citizens.

If you think it only happens somewhere else and not in the United States, think again.

Remember little Elian Gonzales facing the guns of heavily armed U.S. militia and forced to be returned to Castro’s Cuba.

Remember Waco and the Branch Davidian Compound, attacked by the military and burned to the ground, killing 76 men, women and children.

Remember Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge and the unarmed woman holding a baby who was shot and killed by a U.S. sharpshooter.

Those are the most egregious, but certainly not the only cases of Americans being attacked and abused by our own government and military and out-of-control bureaucracies.

As word spread about what was being done to the Bundy family, freedom-loving Americans from Nevada and other states began to rally to support them.

At the same time, media reports, which first were limited to area newspapers, began to spread on the Internet.

It wasn’t a joke. Adding fuel to the fire, Tom Collins, a Clark County commissioner, said anyone from Utah who plans to go to Nevada to support the Bundy family “better have funeral plans.”

According to Drin Bushman, a commissioner from Piute County, Utah, Collins also told him that anyone from Utah planning to support Bundy against the feds, should “turn your asses around and mind your own f—ing business.”

No matter how you look at it, those are fightin’ words.

Hundreds of local militia and average people showed up to support the family and confront the military.

And then suddenly, Saturday morning, the BLM called off the troops, claiming they were concerned about “safety.”

What they omitted from their backtracking story is the fact that a report on Friday on and then other sites showed that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and his son, Rory, are instrumental in a massive land purchase at bargain prices by a Chinese Energy company so it can build a $5-billion solar plant in Southern Nevada.

Also omitted from media coverage is that environmental groups threatened to sue the feds, claiming that cattle kill endangered desert tortoises.

The China issue is there.

The threat of a lawsuit is true; that cattle kill the tortoises is not.

The feds may have backed off a bit, but the threat continues.

Tyranny is limitless, and this administration supports it all the way.

Not a word from Washington about this, but through it all Cliven Bundy is a hero for liberty.


by Joseph Farah | World Net Daily

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy performed a remarkable public service for America over the last couple weeks.

He exposed the utter ruthlessness, brutishness and Gestapo tactics of the federal government in dealing with honest, hard-working Americans who live off the land – our land.

Claiming Bundy’s cattle ranching operation was endangering desert tortoises, the Bureau of Land Management treated him like he was Ted Bundy. I take that back. The serial rapist, mass murderer and necrophile got due process.

When Cliven Bundy’s neighbors turned out to support him, as good American neighbors should, the BLM sent in helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and an estimated 200 armed officers to deal with the cowboy and his family, threatening another Ruby Ridge or Waco-style slaughter.

But I don’t think it was about tortoises. No, sir. In fact, with all the gear and manpower the BLM brought to Clark County to round up the cowboy and his cattle, they did more environmental damage to the area than Cliven Bundy ever could have dreamed of doing.

This was about something else.

It’s always about something else.

Maybe – just maybe – it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid.

It seems the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area – tortoises or no tortoises.

It seems the director of BLM is Reid’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze. BLM had posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

That would be the Chinese solar plant – the Management, or BLM.

They were getting a mega-deal. On April 3, 2012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of ENN, had teamed up with Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value.

But the story gets better. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nev.

A Reuters report stated: “[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert. Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

And there’s an even bigger story of scandal and corruption still beneath this show of force by the BLM, orchestrated by Harry Reid.

On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.

The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.

The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.

By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from an $18.4-billion deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.

China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100 percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.

On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.

  • Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
  • 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 interest 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.
  • Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal.

On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”

But back to Cliven Bundy and Harry Reid.

Remember Solyndra?

ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees.

And, yes, money exchanged hands between ENN and Reid. The Chinese energy company contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles.

Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States. The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Thank you, Cliven Bundy for bringing all of this to the public’s attention.

America is with you.

I am with you.

Enough is enough.

Thank you for exposing how crony capitalism works hand in hand with phony environmentalism.

Indeed, as Kris Kristofferson once wrote, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers