Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (33100)	7/6/2012 10:59:05 PM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86352

If this is true, it's the most objectionable thing Obama has done yet, and that is saying a lot. *Obama Donates 7 Alaska Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars* This is what our beloved president Obama has done in 2012 for America so far this year. This was just sent to me and got very little press to keep it unknown from the American public. Please read the following to see what is happening. Why is he getting away with all of this? *Is there a "REST OF THE STORY"?* This article on Feb. 16, 2012 appears in very few places. Apparently, the regular "professional reporters" consider Obama giving away islands belonging to Alaska and part of the United States as no big deal. Obama is giving these islands to Russia for free, no cost, $zero money or any other consideration. Guess what? The state legislature in Alaska (still one of our 50 states) voted several times in opposition to THE GIVEAWAY! The islands have billions of barrels of OIL and Obama could let oil companies lease parts of the islands and start drilling for MORE OIL!!! Should you suspect Obama was trying to sneak this by? Why? WorldNetDaily.com <http://worldnetdaily.com//. Obama's State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin. The seven islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabed's surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake. The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton. The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy! The State of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition - but the State Department doesn't seem to care. The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size. Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York Citynewspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship's crew received a hero's welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals. In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward's 1867 treaty with Russia. Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department's maritime agreement is a loser - it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska's sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it. Also see Link 1,2 below *Link 1. westernjournalism.com* *Link 2. commonamericanjournal.com* The State Dept. Watch says: statedepartmentwatch.org *And you can "Google" many more links with "Alaska island giveaway"*

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (33100)	7/8/2012 1:54:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86352

I mentioned coastal areas.. and the Nile.. Is it (Sphinx) not barely above sea level and on/close to Nile floodplain.. Let me start with this first.. Sphinx is 65 ft. above sea level... which is also higher than the Nile flood plain. Additionally, the lower enclosure area was buried in sand for the past 3500 years (Thutmose IV), so even if water was flowing over it, it would not have the required force to erode vertically as it seeps into the sand filled enclosure, IMO.. As for other civilizations that may predate the Egyptians, a discovery was made in 2004 of an ancient Berber town in Morocco, 100 miles from the coastline, that dates back 15,000 years. rense.com And we know there are ancient river beds under the Saharan sands (though scientists assert they are millions of years old). And then there's the case of en.wikipedia.org which was inhabited some 10-12, 000 years ago.. But not a particularly sophisticated civilization.. I'm open-minded about it, but I think the evidence is growing that there were civilizations prior to the Egyptians. And the rock formation that the Sphinx was carved from was already "half-way there" with regard to sculpting a lion effigy from it. So I think Egyptian "sophistication" was not necessary for it's carving. Thus, the potential for it pre-dating the Egyptians seems strong.. and they just re-carved the head. Hawk