• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bye-Bye USA?

Help Support Ranchers.net:



Monday, June 6, 2005
Bye-bye USA?
By Barbara Simpson

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

It's amazing what happens when the people – the little people – make their voices heard. Very often, what they say doesn't jibe with what they're supposed to believe.

It's amazing that the governing elite even allow it to happen.

Truth be known, if the elite had their druthers, it would never be permitted because they really don't want to know what the average citizen believes or wants. Nor do they care.

If the truth be known, the governing elite believe they know best for everyone. They believe they are anointed with, and should have, the power to put in place their political, economic, cultural, educational, social and, yes, even moral and religious guidelines.

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about elections in this country – consider the ongoing sour grapes about the last two presidential races – or, the vote in France and the Netherlands on the proposed E.U. constitution.

Candidates or issues are put before "the people" with the expectation that the desires of the elite will be confirmed, but when the votes are in – well, lowrdy me, surprise, surprise – what a shock it is!

I guess the indoctrination didn't work. Guess they'll have to reconfigure the sales pitch, but then again, maybe not. Then again, maybe the impact of the result will make the "little people" realize the power they really have.

Maybe they will realize it isn't safe or wise to put the entire future of your country – and indeed your continent – in the hands of a group of elites who have a vision of the future that isn't quite what the people have in mind. Maybe they will realize that if they go along to get along, they will end up living in a country, in a society that has no reflection of their own history, their own independence and their own identity.

There are 25 E.U. countries and nine had approved the constitution before the French vote. Clearly President Jacques Chirac and his supporters thought they had a sure thing. Why else would they have allowed the issue to go before the people? Talk about being blindsided and, now, not only is the E.U. concept in jeopardy, but so are political careers thought to be bulletproof.

The French people said "non" with a vote of 54 to 46 percent, which was bad enough until the Dutch had their turn. Stunningly, they nixed the proposed constitution 62 to 38 per cent.

You'll hear and read all kinds of interpretations as to why the people said no, but bottom line, it appears the core of the dissatisfaction with the currently popular view of the "new Europe" rests with the ultimate goal of ending the sovereignty of individual countries, the power that would rest with a central government, central court system, central monetary system – essentially, central everything.

Look at it this way: How would you vote if the issue on the table would change our entire system of law, finance, currency, trade, borders, language, education, culture, religion and, on top of that, eliminate our Constitution?

It's a pretty big order and not one to be approached lightly. If your reaction to such a proposal would be a loud "NO," consider that the United States is little more than 200 years old with a system that guides all the states and, despite the multicultural, open-border advocates among us, just one language.

Look at the history of Europe. Consider the varied cultures, languages and political histories of the 25 nations involved in the European Union. Are they just to throw out everything and start over? That is the mantra of the ruling elite who only look at two bottom lines: money and power.

They want to centralize power and control trade. They envision creating, with the stroke of a few pens, a "country" to compete with the United States. What they ignore is that we became the powerhouse we are because of the freedoms granted by our Constitution and by the innovation and energy of our people. Our government didn't create the economic powerhouse that is the USA – our form of government allowed citizens the freedom to succeed.

The E.U. advocates just don't get it. But the people do, and it appears they don't want to be part of a huge, European super-state, forged by politicians who essentially don't give a fig what the people want. Since to be ratified, all 25 states must approve the E.U. constitution – all 448 articles of it – they face a dilemma. As can be expected, the proponents plan to forge ahead.

From our side of the pond, I hope our politicians are paying attention – and that extends to the White House. While our media lament and moan about the E.U. vote, too little attention is being paid to the fact that we're moving closer to more free-trade agreements that would essentially do the same thing to us. There was NAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade Initiative and now, with the support of the administration, CAFTA and ultimately, the goal of open trade and open borders from the tip of South America to the top of Canada.

Are you ready for that? It'll change more than trade. Think about it. One of the most effective tools of the elite who want to change things is to keep you, the people, in the dark.

They've already moved us well along on these issues and if we, the people don't wake up and rattle some cages, we'll be had. And we won't even have the opportunity to vote "yes" or "no." It will be done to us. Because the elite know better. Or do they?

probably make a pretty good market for beef, too. seems americans like our excess oil but not our 'excess' beef.

Sun, June 5, 2005
Chinese pursue oilsands

The rooster has landed.

With Sinopec's announcement last week that it had bought a 40% stake in a $4.5-billion Alberta oilsands project, 2005 -- or the Chinese year of the rooster -- became China's year to lay claim to the world's second biggest oil reserves.

The deal, which was unveiled Tuesday, marked the latest display of interest by the emerging economic powerhouse in Canada's vast oilsands resources.

Under the agreement, state-owned Sinopec will pay Calgary-based Synenco Energy Inc. $105 million for the hefty share in the Northern Lights project at Athabasca.

The buy-in follows a move in April by China National Offshore Oil Corp., which purchased a 17% stake in MEGEnergy Inc. for $150 million.

That gives the Chinese company access to an estimated two billion barrels of recoverable bitumen in northern Alberta.

Also in April, Enbridge inked a memorandum of understanding with PetroChina -- the country's biggest oil company -- for half of the proposed Gateway pipeline's shipping capacity, or 200,000 barrels a day of oilsands crude.

While these multi-million-dollar deals don't signal a takeover of the oilsands, they do illustrate the Communist country's increasing interest in getting its hands on Canadian crude.

"The interest from the Chinese is just the latest example of the growing international awareness of the Canadian resource base," said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

"We've got customers from around the world here, but clearly the Chinese are the ones that have attracted the most recent attention."

And much of that attention has been generated in the U.S., a country which, up until recently, didn't have to worry about competing with other nations for Canadian oil.

During a stop in Calgary last week, Murray Smith -- Alberta's man in Washington, D.C. -- said his ears have been burning when it comes to the oilsands issue.

"There is a keen interest in the United States to make sure that every barrel that's produced from Canada and from Alberta ends up in the United States," said Smith, adding Americans are "very vigilant" about China's affairs on a daily basis.

Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel said he's heard of concerns over oilsands output going to countries other than the U.S., but there's nothing that says Canada can't shop its crude elsewhere.

"Occasionally we hear rumours that there might be some concerns about this crude oil going offshore when there's such a strong demand in the U.S.," Daniel said at Enbridge's annual meeting last month.

"I believe the U.S. has started to realize the importance of the Canadian oilsands and the security of that supply. However, I've never heard anybody suggest that that would be an expectation of exclusivity."

While China stands to gain half of the expected 400,000 barrel-per-day output from the Gateway project, California will still be the beneficiary of one-third of that oil.

Which is why, Smith said, despite what the U.S. wants, it shouldn't be disappointed with what it gets.

"My job is to also squelch rumours before they become policy ... and I've done this -- I talk about, let me see, you use 20 million barrels of oil per day and you're concerned about 200,000 barrels going to China.

"At the same time the United States is very keenly interested in expanding their trade with China, as well."

That's another reason, Alvarez agrees, that Alberta selling its crude to China -- or anywhere else in the world -- shouldn't result in friction between Canada and the U.S.

"There's no intent here to do anything other than for corporations to find the best markets that are available to them," said Alvarez.

So don't expect to see another trade dispute between Canada and the U.S. any time soon -- or at least not one over oil.

But don't be surprised if you see more Chinese corporations plug into the oilsands over the coming months.

Latest posts