Obama Giving Communist China our U.S. Military Technology Secrets via Foreign Contractor Grant - Action Alert from Texas Eagle Forum

the following is an action alert from Texas Eagle Forum:

Obama's Giveaway to the Communists by Phyllis Schlafly President of Eagle Forum The China problem is not just that China is raking in trillions of dollars because of Obama's spending and borrowing binges, and it's not just that government policies encourage well-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs to move overseas. An even bigger problem is that the Obama administration is about to give Communist China some of our most precious and up-to-date military technology. This particular chicanery started when the Obama administration foolishly tried to use taxpayers' money to force green energy to replace fossil fuels. But green energy can't compete in the free market because it's so much more expensive to produce. Obama gave a half-billion U.S. tax dollars to Solyndra to subsidize making solar panels, yet the company promptly went bankrupt. Then Obama awarded a grant of $250 million of Stimulus money to a firm called A123 to make batteries for electric cars, which also went bankrupt and now is trying to pay off its investors by auctioning the company. The high bidder at $256 million in a December auction was the Wanxiang Group, which has close ties to Communist China's government. Its chief executive is one of the wealthiest men in China, a prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party. This sale is dangerous to U.S. security because it involves the transfer of advanced battery technology using lithium iron phosphate, which produces longer life, lighter weight, higher power and more stable batteries that can operate in both very low and very high temperatures. In China's hands, the new A123 technology will threaten U.S. electrical power and communications grids. China is eager for this acquisition because of its potential use in space weapons, anti-satellite missiles, lasers, and counter-space systems. Retired Navy Vice Admiral Barry Costello, former commander of the Navy's Third Fleet, says the sale of A123 will give a big boost to China's military expansion and warfare capability in space, cyber warfare and unmanned vehicles, all of which rely on battery power. One option considered is to sell only the commercial technology to Wanxiang and sell its U.S. defense contracts to a U.S. firm, Navitas Systems. But pretending that A123's advanced technology can be sold to China only for business purposes is a pipe dream. A123 employs more than 100 scientists and engineers working on sensitive materials that are part of what is scheduled to be sold to Wanxiang. If China gets access to A123's commercial applications, it will be easy for China to reverse-engineer the military applications. If Wanxiang owns A123's intellectual property and highly skilled technicians, that means controlling today's battery technology plus a 10-year leap in development. Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Chuck Grassley Iowa warn that the deal could give Wanxiang "access to these defense contracts and technology used by multiple branches of the U.S. military." This giant and valuable gift would give Communist China cutting-edge, military-grade technology and control of the future supply chain. China would be able to use all this technology to continue its rapid buildup of a military to achieve dominance in the Pacific. The U.S. military has made a big investment in A123's technology, which the Army's chief of technology acquisition has called the "technology of the decade." To develop it, the Air Force spent $4 million, the Navy spent $700,000, and the Army spent $21.8 million. This technology is critical to many U.S. military operations, proprietary applications for underwater vehicles, shipboard advanced systems, unmanned ground and air systems and portable power in satellites, combat vehicles and precision munitions. It is valuable to support soldiers in unfriendly ground conditions and excessive heat, and can lighten their heavy loads. More than two-dozen members of Congress have spoken out to oppose the sale of A123. Letters have been sent to the Secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Energy and Homeland Security urging consideration of the "potential harmful consequences, including any threats to domestic security, innovation leadership and job creation." U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, in his year-end report to Congress, accused China of flouting World Trade Organization rules and misusing the complaint procedure to retaliate against other countries. Kirk's report also accused China of violating WTO rules by forcing other firms to give their trade secrets to China. Especially since U.S. taxpayers funded the development of these assets, it is contrary to common sense to transfer this cutting-edge battery technology to China and disadvantage U.S. national security. Whether we will allow Wanxiang to buy A123 with its new battery technology is now under review by CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.). Tell your Members of Congress to stop this giveaway of U.S. technology to Communist China.

Phyllis Schlafly: School Shooter Played Violent Video Games - Studies Show Violent Games Desensitize People

The following article is from Phyllis Schlafly posted on Eagle Forum:

Why Did He Kill All Those Children?

by Phyllis Schlafly

January 2, 2013

The idea for massacring children in an elementary school or shooting up a mall filled with Christmas shoppers does not come from reading books, watching movies, or listening to music. Does the incitement for such unspeakable acts come from hours of role-playing violent video games?
As we speculate on what was going on in the mind of the murderer, the media are trying to blame his evil act on the lack of gun control. But the ownership of firearms or attending a shooting range do not desensitize someone to the cold-blooded murder of many children.
The act of mass, cold blooded murder requires not only the idea for it, but also a desensitizing to the blood spattered result. Someone who murders dozens of children in an elementary school, as tragically occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, must have grown insensitive to the result or he would not have continued killing amid the horror.
A recent study found that the more someone plays violent video games, the more aggressive he is likely to become in real life. That study, released prior to its upcoming publication in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in March 2013, seems to report the obvious, but it needs to be said.
The mass murderer at the Newtown elementary school, Adam Lanza, had an existence that “largely involved playing violent computer video games in a bedroom,” as reported by the Telegraph in England. The British newspaper reported that Lanza had “spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker.”
The liberal media in the United States were slow to publicize his video game preoccupation, but finally Connecticut authorities confirmed that Lanza had been playing “graphically violent” video games. While growing up, one of his favorite games was the violent game called Dynasty Warriors. It is common for law enforcement to fail to disclose to the public the extent to which a mass murderer had been playing violent video games, as well as what psychiatric or illegal drugs he may have been using.
In the case of Adam Lanza, it was a plumber who worked in his house who told what he had witnessed to a British newspaper. The U.S. media have also been ignoring other facts about the 20-year-old Lanza such as his mental diagnosis, medication, and the fact that he didn’t have his father in the home because he had been divested of his father’s authority by a family court.
Few people over age 40 are aware of how extremely violent many of these video games are, and how many hours teenagers spend playing them. Even some bright students drop out of college due to an addiction to video games.
In an outrageous example of judicial supremacy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2011 that the video game industry has a First Amendment right to sell violent video games even to minors. The case is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and it imposed a First Amendment prohibition on states from protecting youngsters against violent video games.
If that same case came before the U.S. Supreme Court today, it seems unlikely that there would be 5 votes (or 4 or even 3) for the ridiculous notion that training teenagers how to kill, and desensitizing them to the bloodshed they cause, is a First Amendment “right” that overrules parents’ rights over their own children. State legislators should pass laws to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to correct its mistake, and Congress should consider withdrawing this issue from federal court jurisdiction.
The Newtown elementary school is certainly not the only example of heinous crimes committed by young players of violent video games. A few days earlier in Oregon, video-game player Jacob Tyler Roberts massacred innocent people in a shopping mall in a manner reminiscent of a violent video game, and last summer there was a movie theater massacre killing 12 and injuring 58, by the suspect James Holmes, also a video game player.
In many of these terrible crimes, the perpetrator kills himself too, which makes the subsequent withholding of detailed information about his video game use unjustified. Even when the perpetrator survives, he has surely waived any right to privacy.
A state legislature or Congress should immediately require full disclosure to the public of the violent game playing activity found on the murderers’ computers. Instead of scapegoating gun manufacturers, legislatures should require the violent video game industry to put big, clear warnings on their products as cigarette companies are forced to do.