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

Obama State Dept. set to cede oil-rich AL. islands to Russia

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,281
Reaction score
485
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
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 endangered 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 seabeds 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 President Obama or Secretary 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.


Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/obama-must-stop-alaskan-islands-giveaway
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
According to some US individuals, including the group State Department Watch, eight Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia, including Wrangel Island, are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not specifically address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them.

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed an executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. According to State Department Watch, neither the public nor Congress were informed of this executive agreement during the period leading up to the ratification vote. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

Faster- were you as infuriated and vocal when Secretary of State Baker signed the original agreement with the Russians-- or President Bush when he signed the Treaty after Congressional ratification... :???:
Do you think President Obama should back out of an international agreement approved by the Senate and signed by Bush 1...... :???:

A set of islands that the Russian government has claimed sovereignty over since Tsarist times- and that has been governed by the Soviet Union/Russia since at least 1926.... Islands that the US has never claimed sovereignty over....



A look at the map will give the reader some notion of the frozen “Alaskan” islands under discussion. All are far closer to the Russian mainland than to the Alaskan mainland. All lie on the Russian side of the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary set by a treaty that the U.S. Senate ratified overwhelmingly more than two decades ago, after being signed by President George H.W. Bush, and with the support of both of Alaska’s senators.

The largest, Wrangel Island (in Russian, Ostrov Vrangelya), is named for the Russian explorer Ferdinand P. Wrangel, who heard of the island from Siberian natives as early as 1820. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wrangel did not land on it while mapping the Siberian coast that year. The first European to sight it may have been the British explorer Capt. Henry Kellett, who in 1849 discovered and landed on nearby Herald Island, and saw Wrangel in the distance.

The uninhabited Wrangel Island was sighted by U.S. vessels in 1867 and 1881, but not settled. A Canadian explorer named Vilhjalmur Stefansson and survivors of a disastrous expedition reached the island in 1914. But when Stefansson later tried to claim Wrangel for Canada without authorization, he caused an international incident, infuriating the Canadian government. Then in 1926 the Soviet Union staked a claim to the island and settled a few native families there.

According to a 1990 story by the Associated Press, Wrangel and four other uninhabited islands were surveyed in 1881 by a U.S. Navy commander, and for a time were listed in the “District of Alaska” by the U.S. Geological Survey. That’s about the extent of justification for calling them “Alaskan.” Neither the U.S., Britain nor Canada has disputed the Soviet (and now Russian) claim to Wrangel. The U.S. State Department says Wrangel and the others weren’t included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and “they have never been claimed by the United States.”

Nevertheless, a crusading California activist named Carl Olson, of Woodland Hills, Calif., made it his business to claim that the islands are “100 percent American,” as the AP said in 1990. The organization Olson founded, “State Department Watch, Ltd,” is still pressing that argument today. (The group is a nonprofit advocacy organization that reported taking in $2.4 million in 2010 but spent most of it on fundraising, according to its most recent IRS Form 990. It paid Olson an $80,000 salary, made grants of $51,000 to the “1776 Tea Party” of Laguna Woods, Calif., and $9,500 to the “Minuteman Project, Inc.” of Aliso Viejo, Calif. But nearly $2 million was reported going for postage and printing. The group reports that it hired Virginia-based WJM Associates, a fundraising and marketing firm that lists several Republican and conservative groups as clients.)

Despite Olson’s objections, the Senate ratified a treaty establishing the current maritime boundary between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia) on Sept. 16, 1991. The vote was a lopsided 86 to 6. Alaska’s senators, the late Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, both Republicans, voted in favor of ratification.

But voting against the treaty were Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and four other Republicans, led by the late Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. During a very brief debate, Helms said he was fighting to “protect the status” of Wrangel Island and four others: Herald, Bennett, Henrietta and Jeannette Islands.

The treaty did not specifically cede sovereignty over the islands to the Soviets (which the U.S. wasn’t disputing anyway), and merely clarified the location of the maritime boundary to settle squabbles over fishing and undersea mineral rights. Nevertheless, Helms said he would vote against it because “I doubt that the State Department will make use of the opportunity to press U.S. claims to the five islands — even though the right to do so is preserved.”

(To read the full debate in the Congressional Record, search the Library of Congress Thomas website for the 102nd Congress, and enter “S13036″ to bring up the first page.)

And sure enough, no president or secretary of state since has shown any interest in disputing the Soviet/Russian claim to Wrangel Island or the others. Which brings us to the present accusation that President Obama is somehow giving away something the U.S. has never claimed to own. How can that be?

For one thing, the maritime boundary treaty has never been ratified by the Russians, which is required for it to take full force. By the time the U.S. Senate had ratified the treaty (signed by the Soviets the previous year), the Soviet Union was near collapse. Shortly afterward, the Russian Federation notified the U.S. government by diplomatic note that it would continue to abide by the terms of the agreement on a provisional basis, however.

Ironically, in view of claims of a U.S. “giveaway,” it is the Russians who have sought to renegotiate the terms of the boundary treaty on grounds that their side gave up too much to the United States. A history of the matter, by Vlad M. Kaczynski of the Warsaw School of Economics, published in the May 1, 2007, edition of the Russian Analytical Digest, details why the new Russian Federation refused to ratify the treaty:

Kaczynski, 2007: Many accuse Gorbachev and Shevardnadze of ceding Russia’s rightful fishing areas in their haste to negotiate a deal for signature at the 1990 White House Summit. “Russian parliamentarians understood perfectly well that the agreement infringed upon Russia’s interests and therefore the document has never been ratified by the Russian parliament,” these critics say. Other Russian officials have voiced their opposition to the treaty not only because of lost fishing opportunities, but also due to the loss of potential oil and gas fields and naval passages for submarines.

Content to hang on to what the Soviet negotiators gave up, the U.S. State Department says, “The United States has no intention of reopening discussion of the 1990 Maritime Boundary Agreement.” However, since the treaty has yet to be ratified by the Russians, Olson and some on the right argue that the U.S. should still be pressing claims to Wrangel (Olson prefers to spell it “Wrangell” with two “l’s”) and other islands and rocks.

The whole business was raised anew in an opinion piece published Feb. 16 on the conservative site World Net Daily (notable for promoting dubious claims about the president’s birthplace). It was written by Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of former Sen. Frank Murkowski) in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, only to see Lisa Murkowski go on to win the general election handily as a write-in candidate.

“Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians,” Miller wrote. “We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.” The following day, Miller posted an addendum to his piece conceding that he was raising “an old issue” and that he had been “assisted with this article” by Olson’s State Department Watch.

It is an old issue indeed. In fact, World Net Daily itself published a July 29, 2008, article critical of the State Department for the “island giveaway.” Of course, George W. Bush — not Obama — was president at the time. (The Bush administration’s official Arctic Region Policy stated that the U.S. would abide by the 1990 maritime agreement and would continue to urge the Russian Federation to ratify it.)

And we’re not sure why Miller mentions only seven islands when Olson always has insisted the U.S. has a claim to eight. But whatever the count, it is simply false to claim that Obama is “giving away” islands to which no U.S. president has asserted a claim for more than 85 years, if ever.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Bullhauler said:
Now now Oldtimer don't let the facts get in the way of another one of fasterhorses stories.

Just like oldtimer should never let FACT get in the way of his opinion and ability to twist the truth so far it meets itself coming back around


http://cdn.times247.com/media/pictures/4f4177c067c9be4523000468/RN_bennetisland.jpg?1329690560
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,281
Reaction score
485
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Bullhauler said:
Now now Oldtimer don't let the facts get in the way of another one of fasterhorses stories.

It wasn't one of MY stories. It was from the Washington Times.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But just to make sure you read
to the bottom, I'll copy it here for you:


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.


My question to you now is
what happened to transparency?

Or did you forget that was one of his promises. He seems to have forgotten a long time ago. So far the only promise he has kept
is to regulate the coal companies so they can't operate.

Oh yeah and he promised CHANGE. But it hasn't been change for
the better.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
oldtimers bubble was burst a long time ago when he went to bed with obama :D :D :D
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
hypocritexposer said:
Anybody else picture the "Skipper" and his little buddy, "Gilligan" whenever OT and Bullhauler start posting in tandem?


Good one!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Why don't you ask GEORGE BUSH (1st) about it...he signed the damned thing...not Obama.


And we all know how moist you get at the mention of the Bush name....so do you want the hands of the Black socialist/communist to undo something a sainted Bush thought proper????


he Senate ratified a treaty establishing the current maritime boundary between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia) on Sept. 16, 1991. The vote was a lopsided 86 to 6. Alaska’s senators, the late Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, both Republicans, voted in favor of ratification.


The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
jingo2 said:
Why don't you ask GEORGE BUSH (1st) about it...he signed the damned thing...not Obama.


And we all know how moist you get at the mention of the Bush name....so do you want the hands of the Black socialist/communist to undo something a sainted Bush thought proper????


he Senate ratified a treaty establishing the current maritime boundary between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia) on Sept. 16, 1991. The vote was a lopsided 86 to 6. Alaska’s senators, the late Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, both Republicans, voted in favor of ratification.


The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I don't know of a conservative that thought Bush was all that great. He sure wasn't a conservative, he was just better than the leftwinger liberals options.

That being said obama is a failure, evidenced by the fact that no one can really defend his socialist ways with out saying well someone one else didn't do everything right. I offer this thread as an example.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed an executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. According to State Department Watch, neither the public nor Congress were informed of this executive agreement during the period leading up to the ratification vote.[38] The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush

ever wonder why we bought land and then gave up some of it?

Eight islands and their surrounding sea floors were ceded to the former Soviet Union as part of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, a treaty signed by the U.S. Senate and President George Bush but never ratified by the Soviets. Nonetheless, an executive agreement enforcing the terms of the treaty until ratification has been in place through three presidencies,

so yes now would be a good time to back out of a one-sided deal the Russians never signed.. :? :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jingo2 said:
Why don't you ask GEORGE BUSH (1st) about it...he signed the damned thing...not Obama.

And we all know how moist you get at the mention of the Bush name....so do you want the hands of the Black socialist/communist to undo something a sainted Bush thought proper????


he Senate ratified a treaty establishing the current maritime boundary between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia) on Sept. 16, 1991. The vote was a lopsided 86 to 6. Alaska’s senators, the late Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, both Republicans, voted in favor of ratification.




The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

Shifting Women’s Vote Thrusts Obama Ahead of Romney
Monday, 02 Apr 2012 12:41 PM

By Greg McDonald

President Barack Obama is beginning to pull away from Republican front-runner Mitt Romney among women throughout the nation, according to several polls.

Obama has opened a significant lead over Romney in the nation’s top battleground states, mostly due to a major change in how women under 50 are planning to vote, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll of at least a dozen key states gave Obama a 51 to 42 percent lead over Romney among registered voters. The finding was significant because the same poll taken in February had the president trailing Romney by 2 percentage points.

The biggest change, USA Today reported, came in the views expressed by women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those women supported Obama. Now, more than six in 10 do and Romney’s support from this group has dropped 14 points to 30 percent.

The new poll largely reflected what other surveys in Wisconsin and other states have shown — that women appear to be turning away from Romney and Republicans in general in favor of the president.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Shifting Women’s Vote Thrusts Obama Ahead of Romney
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Jingo- don't blow away the beliefs that FH has from being on the radical rights e-mail list..... It has to be true if its anti Obama and a cultist group sent it to her :wink: :roll: :p :lol:

Its apparent that the majority of most women support Obama/Dems over Romney/Repubs-- especially after birth control became a major issue...

And I wonder what the FH's of the country will think of Repubs when they find out that the Ryan/Republican backed budget plans to do away with medicare..... :???:

Repubs are setting themselves up again to be losers- taking on issues opposing the beliefs of the country- and especially most women- and seniors :roll:

But the rightwingernuts keep sending out e-mails-- more false stories and conspiracies... I'm waiting for them to start sending out ones claiming that Obama is an extraterrestrial or moonman :roll:
But the saddest thing is some will believe it- because an e-mail or cultist acquaintance told them it was true. :wink: :p :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
That Maritime Treaty was one of the best things to happen to the USA. Wanna know why the USSR hasn't ratified it? Because it's not a good deal for them. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Steve said:
On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed an executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. According to State Department Watch, neither the public nor Congress were informed of this executive agreement during the period leading up to the ratification vote.[38] The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush

ever wonder why we bought land and then gave up some of it?

Eight islands and their surrounding sea floors were ceded to the former Soviet Union as part of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, a treaty signed by the U.S. Senate and President George Bush
but never ratified by the Soviets. Nonetheless, an executive agreement enforcing the terms of the treaty until ratification has been in place through three presidencies,

so yes now would be a good time to back out of a one-sided deal the Russians never signed.. :? :???:

I guess it is easier to attack the poster then realize an unsigned un-ratified treaty,... ain't worth the paper it wasn't signed on......

:shock:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
jingo2 said:










But the rightwingernuts keep sending out e-mails-- more false stories and conspiracies... I'm waiting for them to start sending out ones claiming that Obama is an extraterrestrial or moonman :roll:
But the saddest thing is some will believe it- because an e-mail or cultist acquaintance told them it was true. :wink: :p :lol:


We can't claim he a moonman or such oldtimer remember he has a BC :roll: :roll: :roll:
EH?????
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Jingo- don't blow away the beliefs that FH has from being on the radical rights e-mail list..... It has to be true if its anti Obama and a cultist group sent it to her :wink: :roll: :p :lol:

Its apparent that the majority of most women support Obama/Dems over Romney/Repubs-- especially after birth control became a major issue...

And I wonder what the FH's of the country will think of Repubs when they find out that the Ryan/Republican backed budget plans to do away with medicare..... :???:

Repubs are setting themselves up again to be losers- taking on issues opposing the beliefs of the country- and especially most women- and seniors :roll:

But the rightwingernuts keep sending out e-mails-- more false stories and conspiracies... I'm waiting for them to start sending out ones claiming that Obama is an extraterrestrial or moonman :roll:
But the saddest thing is some will believe it- because an e-mail or cultist acquaintance told them it was true. :wink: :p :lol:

Gawd Oldtimer I love how you claim others believe everything they hear when you believe AND DEFEND every lieing claim Obama has ever made. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seems to me you believed the Democraps when in 2010 they claimed they were not going to lose their super majority Senate and Majority in the House didn't you Oldtimer? :lol: :lol: :lol:
What lead up to the HISTORICAL DEFEAT Obama's over promising and out and out lieing.

What is leading to a repeat in 2012?

Obama claiming Obamacare was going to cost $960 billion and hold down healthcare cost but the true bill according to the CBO is now $1.7 TRILLION and insurance premiums are skyrocketing due to all of Obama's required coverage changes, including free Birth Control for the Sandra Flukes of the US.

Obama claiming if you like your Healthcare coverage you could keep it yet millions are expected to lose their coverage when small businesses have to comply with all Obama's required coverage.

Obama claiming Obamacare is a great bill and will save peoples lives but yet he will not sign his Wife and daughters up to it and he is providing waivers to his supporters that don't want to comply with the bill either.

Obama claiming Ryan will kill Medicare but he cuts $500 billion from medicare when Doctors are already warning they will not stay taking Medicare patients if they only get 50 cents on the dollar of true expenses of treating those patients.

Could these be the reasons a large majority of voters want Obamacare repealed Oldtimer? :? :roll:

Then you have

Obama claiming he was going to be BI-PARTISAN but he says WE WON WE WRITE THE BILL. REAL BiPartisan Oldtimer.

Obama claiming his stimulus was going to fix the economy but Unemployment is higher now than when he passed the trillion dollar Stimulus bill

Obama claiming Bush spent to much money but in three years he has spent MORE that Bush spent in 8 years.

Obama claiming raising the debt ceiling was a sign of no leadership coming from the Bush White House but then blames the Republicans because he has to ask to raise the debt ceiling how many times in three years.

Obama claiming Bush was at fault for the price of Gas in 2008 but refuses to take the blame when he is in the same office with the same powers and gas prices are higher than under Bush.

Obama claiming the US has to be Independent of Foreign oil but provided two billion dollars to Brazil for off shore drilling while shutting down Federal Drilling in the US. Oh yes drilling in the US is up but it is from State and Private drilling NOT FEDERAL. And gas consumption is down because thanks to Obama's policies noboby can afford to consume gas.

Obama claiming he was going to have the most Transparent administration in History BUT Holder stonewalls the Fast and Furious hearings at every step.

When it comes to Transparency Sheriff Joe's investigation finds a fraudulent photoshopped Birth Certificate put out by the White House to cover the fact Obama is not qualified to be in the White House. Then you have the Georgia courts hearing the case and the state is awarded billions of dollar . Real TRANSPARENT. We can all see through what is going on with the DOJ sueing Sheriff Joe and the Billion dollar pay off Georgia got. :wink:

Obama claiming he was going to go line by line and cut wasteful spending but it just came out he knew about his GSA spending almost a million dollars on a convention and his appointee wasn't forced out of her job until the media found out a year later. ACCOUNTABILITY OBAMA STYLE/ AFTER THE FACT.

Obama claiming to be outraged about hugh CEO bonuses but yet he signed a bill that protected AIG's CEO Bonuses. I guess his lawyer side never told his incompetent president side to always read what you sign especially when hundreds of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAX PAYER MONEY are at stake.

Obama claiming he was going to clean up Washington DC by appointing TAX CHEATS to his Administration. Not sure how you clean up a place by bringing in different more corrupt people but that is the change Obama brings to the table.

Kind of like the transparency Obama used while behind closed doors making dirty deals to get enough support to pass his questionablly Constitution Signature Bill. But hey as long as Obama the Constitutional Lawyer/Professor says it is Constititional and was passed by a large Majority of a Democratically elected Congress who is to question him, CERTAINLY NOT the large majority of voters who want it repealed and the Un-Elected Supreme Court that's job is to review Bills passed by the government to rule on Constitutionality, right Oldtimer. :roll:

And you have the gall to attack someone for believing what the culist tell them. :roll:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,194
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas
Excuse me, but I just had to read that again. I don't think I've ever seen a girl hit anybody that hard. :lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Problem is oldtimer won't read it (ego) kolo=jingo=lili=alloe CAN'T read it, and the rest of the liberals will ignore fact.

EH???
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Iget a kick out of ot, he has been sent under the porch with all his flawed ideas. But then he comes up with a scrap of pink slime he jumps out from under the porch. It doesn't take long with his flawed ideas to head back under the porch.
 

Latest posts

Top