Alaska “Republicans” looking a lot like Wisconsin Fleebaggers

With the Wisconsin recall election in the news, it is only fitting that we take a trip down memory lane.  Anyone remember those Democrat senators fleeing to Illinois to prevent a quorum so the the Senate couldn’t pass Governor Walker’s reforms?  Looks like the old guard in the Alaska GOP stole a page from their playbook.

With outgoing Chair Randy Ruedrich and other members of current GOP leadership publicly calling for delegates not to show up to the June 9th re-convening of the 2012 Alaska Republican Convention, I’m left wondering if the demons Scott Walker just drove out of Wisconsin haven’t taken up residence in Alaska. Seems Ruedrich’s designs are eerily similar to the ill-fated Wisconsin Democrats. He hopes to prevent a quorum so the Convention is unable to take up consideration of the rules changes put forward by the Convention Rules Committee, one of which just happens to be the “legacy rule” that would relieve Ruedrich of his duties effective immediately.  No self-serving there.

Also at issue is a whole roster of resolutions passed by the various committees at the April convention, everything from censuring Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “dishonesty, duplicity . . . and extraordinary disloyalty” to a resolution urging Congress not to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and a resolution calling for the full repeal of Obamacare.

What is perhaps most egregious is the fact that the old guard is citing rumors of nefarious intent on behalf of Ron Paul supporters as a pretext, claiming that there is a move under way to suspend the rules and change out all the national delegates previously elected – presumably with Ron Paul supporters.  Supporters of Dr. Paul deny the claim.  But that notwithstanding, how credible could such a claim possibly be when less than half of the elected state delegates are Paul supporters, and it takes a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules?

I must admit the whole specter is somewhat embarrassing, but this isn’t the first time I’ve been ashamed of my party leadership.  It seems a pattern is taking shape, one that is not a little bit troubling, and one that will eventually split the Republican Party if some leaders don’t emerge who are willing to call out the bad players. We cannot afford to let a small group of  elitists tarnish the party brand any further.

When the sitting Party Chair and members of the Central Committee are openly attacking duly elected leaders in the press; when sitting members of the Central Committee are vowing to “burn down” the party; when opposition research is being conducted and deployed by upstanding “Republicans” against their own party officers; when rules are being disregarded; it’s time to say enough is enough.

From the outset of my involvement in Alaska politics, I’ve watched the elites refuse to accept the landslide election of Sarah Palin as governor over incumbent Frank Murkowski and favored challenger John Binkley; refuse to accept Joe Miller’s election as the party’s nominee for US Senate, despite the fact that he received more than ten thousand more votes than Lisa Murkowski did in her decisive 2004 primary election win; and now refuse to recognize duly elected delegates and officers of the party simply because their candidates didn’t win.

It took the same folks a year-and-a-half after the election of Sarah Palin as governor to even acknowledge her administration on the party website. They joined forces with the liberal Democrats to viciously attack the governor after her return from the 2008 Presidential race, and eventually helped to drive her from office.  They publicly engaged in malicious personal attacks on Joe Miller in 2010.  And now they seek to do the same to Chair-elect Russ Millette. There is only one crime all three of these Alaskans are guilty of: being duly elected Republicans.

The good book declares,“by their fruits you will know them.”  When folks break party rules with impunity while holding others to the “letter of the law,” you can be sure they have an hypocrisy problem.  When folks disregard the law when it isn’t in keeping with their desired ends, you can be sure they have an integrity problem. When folks have no regard for the truth, even for their own word, you can be certain they have a problem with the truth.  And when they refuse to accept the outcome of democratic elections, you can be sure that they don’t have the public’s best interest in mind. They are a law unto themselves.

The “Republicans” I speak of are reminiscent of petulant school children: selfish, divisive,  mean-spirited, slanderous, dishonest. If they don’t get their way, they just take their toys and go home. Let’s do the rank and file membership of the Alaska Republican Party a favor and show them the door.

It is time for Alaska Republicans to show the voting public that we don’t condone the rogue behavior of the ruling class. We don’t run when things get tough. Leave that to those other folks from Wisconsin. Real Republicans take responsibility, finish what they start, and don’t shy away from hard decisions.  I’ll be joining the real Republicans at the Anchorage Baptist Temple at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday morning.  If you’re a delegate, I hope to see you there.

Matt Johnson is a delegate to the Republican State Convention from District 11

Congressional Earmarks Continue: Sealaska Demands its Quid Pro Quo

Ted Stevens may be gone, but his legacy lives on.

Sen. Lisa A. Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Donald E. Young (R-Alaska) are the ringleaders behind legislation (S.730 & H.R.1408) that would allow Sealaska Corporation of Juneau to clear-cut the Tongass National Forest.

Supporters of the proposed land transfer met last Wednesday with representatives of the Department of Agriculture to discuss legislation that will allow Sealaska to make land selections from an area that includes the Tongass’ few remaining old-growth stands.

Sealaska led the charge behind Alaskans Standing Together, the super PAC that propelled Murkowski from GOP-primary-loser to write-in-winner and Republican Senator in 38 days by spending $1.7 million on a pro-Murkowski ad campaign.

Following meetings with congressional committees last week, multiple Capitol Hill sources involved in the discussions said the Murkowski-Young legislation is gaining traction in the Republican-controlled House and could emerge as part of an omnibus package pending the actions of the House Natural Resources Committee—which is bad news for the ancient trees Sealaska wants to harvest, but far worse for the local communities the corporation’s logging threatens to destroy.

Sealaska is one of 12 regional corporations Congress created through the Alaskan Native Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971 oversee the distribution to the native population of roughly $1 billion in federal funds and 44 million acres of land.

Read more at the Blaze.com HERE.

Teleconference Tonight: The Real Story on the AK GOP Party Leadership Change with Chair-elect Millette & Joe Miller

 

May 10, 2012.  The national media has recently reported on the significant leadership changes within the Alaska Republican Party as well as the vigorous protest of Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Wyoming’s Sen. John Barrasso at the ARP annual  convention.  Please join Party Chairman-elect Russ Millette and Joe Miller in a discussion about what happened at the convention, why it happened, and what it means for the future of Alaska.

Please join us tonight, May 10, 2012, at 5 p.m. Alaska Time/6 p.m. Pacific Time/9 p.m. Eastern Time for this informative event.  Participation is limited, so please sign in early.  There is no cost for participation but donations are welcome.

To join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, click or copy and paste this URL into your browser:

https://www.fuzemeeting.com/fuze/001c01f3/16490773

To join by telephone, please call:

Dial-in Number: +17759963560

When prompted enter the room number:

Room #: 926281 and press the # key.

To join by Skype: fuzemeeting

When prompted enter the room number:

Room #: 926281 and press the # key.

 

Alaska school stomps on third grader’s free exercise rights, ID’s her as a “bully”

A third grade student in a Palmer, Alaska elementary school was suspended for bullying when she allegedly told a classmate, “I do not want to play with you at recess because you are not Christian.” The comment was supposedly made to a boy who, together with no other student, teacher, or staff, recalls exactly what was said.  Nevertheless, the elementary school principal stated that the suspended girl was being a bully because she her alleged comments excluded the other admittedly non-Christian student.  The school apparently believed that the suspension of the Christian girl was necessary to protect the boy’s rights and views.

Interestingly, several weeks before the incident, religious beliefs were a discussion in the third grade classroom.  Students discussed whether they went to church and what their respective religious beliefs were.  The girl who was suspended had identified herself as a Christian.  The boy who she supposedly bullied said he was not.  No one was taken to the principal, counseled, or disciplined for any of these discussions.

As it turns out, the school administration suspended the girl only after learning that she said something about being a “Christian” during her subsequent conversation with the boy.  Not surprisingly, the parents of the suspended girl contacted the school repeatedly for an explanation for why an eight year old child would be suspended for bullying even if she really had said “I do not want to play with you at recess because you are not Christian.”  The school has refused the parents’ request to interview all the parties.  The suspended girl has no prior record of bullying.  Nor can the school document any other instance where the eight year old had any inappropriate discussions regarding religion or any other topic.

In short, the school suspended the little girl (without any due process) solely because it thought that it was very wrong for a child to demonstrate a religious preference for play and friendship, even though students make friends on other types of preferences all the time.

This type of hostility toward religion is inexcusable.  Public classrooms have increasingly become a battlefield in the struggle to maintain religious liberty in America as well as freedom of speech and preference. It shouldn’t be surprising that the battle lines are present in Alaska as well.

The real issue here is that a very young third grader is being taught that her rights to practice her religion can be trumped by the government.  She has also been taught that she really doesn’t have freedom of speech.  The hostility toward religion here is clear: if the girl would have stated to the boy that she would not play with him because he was a boy, wore a funny shirt, or for any other preference, then the school would have done nothing. It seems public schools want to brainwash children early, stripping away the vestiges of America’s true heritage.

Joe Miller meets with Alaska conservatives to plot course ahead

Announcements for Saturday afternoon’s “Celebrate America” rally at Kenai’s Leif Hansen Memorial Park did, indeed, specify 2012, though much of the proceedings would have been right at home in the 2010 election season, or even the 2008 presidential campaign.

Among the attendees were supporters of Texas Congressman and current presidential candidate Ron Paul, who also ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 against Sen. John McCain. Standing at the park’s frontage with the Kenai Spur Highway was another reference to the 2008 presidential election — a man bearing a homemade cardboard sign that read, “Where’s the real birth certificate?” and, “Obama is a fraud,” with a Washington, D.C., phone number for Rep. Don Young.

Presenters spoke of continuing the ongoing effort to return Alaska and the U.S. to the values of conservatism, rather than setting out any brand-new mission. The special guest speaker, Joe Miller, reiterated the message he’s been delivering since his 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate, in which he won the primary vote but lost in the general election to a write-in campaign for incumbent Lisa Murkowski.

The message bears repeating because the state and country are still facing the same problems, Miller said.  “This nation still is at a crossroad point, similar to what we saw in 2010,” he said. “… We’ve got to have people who are willing to tell the truth, and we aren’t seeing that at the national level. And even at the state level, the same sort of situation approaches — decreasing oil production and increasing expenditures.”  Miller warned that the practice of “kicking the debt can down the road,” on both the national and state level, is not sustainable.  Sometime in the near future, spending will need to be ratcheted back and tough decisions will have to be made, he said.  “It’s easy for the free money. That’s why politicians like it, because it’s the lazy approach. And that’s what we’ve dealt with for years and we’ve got to move to a different direction or else we’re going to end up with hard times,” Miller said.

In Alaska, he advocates for diversifying the economy as a way to soften the tough transition the state faces as both oil revenues and federal spending decline. “It’s obvious that this state needs to be active and very concerned about ensuring that we create an economy outside of those traditional sources,” he said. “… This state has got to be real about creating an economy, or we’re going to have a mass exodus of people going on. We’re not going to have jobs for our kids . . . ”

Read more from the Redoubt Reporter/Homer Tribune.

Ron Paul campaign confronts Alaska corruption: attacks Republican Party for illegally disenfranchising non-Romney delegates

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign condemned today the efforts of the Alaska Republican Party and its chairman Randy Reudrich to disenfranchise Paul and other non-Romney delegates to the party’s upcoming state convention.  In doing so, the Paul campaign also announced that it will utilize all legal tools at its disposal to prevent or reverse the state party’s illegal efforts to omit non-Romney delegates to the convention.

The state party-initiated conflict in this regard is especially worrisome and politically sensitive as the Paul campaign believes it won a significant portion of delegates at the Alaska State House district conventions already held.  The Paul camp anticipates that its delegate tally at the upcoming state convention will increase as supporters of former candidate Rick Santorum – including fellow prolife supporters – defect to the Paul camp or become non-Romney delegates to the Republican National Convention to be held late August in Tampa, Florida.  In light of this, the issue has national party and political implications because it affects the conversation that will occur in Tampa over whether constitutionally-limited government and an authentic commitment to the sanctity of life will prevail over the status quo.

The Alaska Republican Party state convention is set to be held from April 26th-28th, and all previous communications to would-be delegates have stated that a delegate fee of $250 would be accepted up until the convention registration deadline, which is 2:00 p.m. Alaska Time on April 26th.  However, on Monday the 16thstate party chairman Randy Reudrich called a state committee meeting at which he stated that delegate fees would be accepted no later than 48 hours from the time of the meeting, which would be Wednesday, April 18th.  However, on Tuesday the state party said that delegate fees had to be paid by 6:00 p.m that evening.  As individual delegates and campaigns scrambled to pay delegate fees, the state party erected bizarre and allegedly extra-legal obstacles in front of Paul, prolife, and other non-Romney delegates, and communications between self-identifying non-Romney delegates and state party personnel degraded.

One example of the state party trying to frustrate Paul delegates was in exactly when and how delegates could remit their $250 fee.  Acceptable methods of payment ranged from online credit card payment on the state party website – although the link to such had been inexplicably removed – to personal checks that were later said to be unacceptable, to money orders that in at least one case were termed unacceptable and returned.  The state party, the Ron Paul campaign argues, capriciously moved its payment deadline and modified its acceptable ways of paying the $250 delegate fee expressly to frustrate Paul delegates and in general any delegates outside the tight circle of party-sanctioned non-Romney delegates.

The Alaska GOP also wrongly stated that individual Paul, prolife, or non-Romney supporters were prohibited from sponsoring the $250 delegate fees for surrogate delegates, disbursements used to cover airfare, accommodations, and the like in as large a state as Alaska.  In the example, the party told a grassroots Ron Paul supporter that he could not sponsor four surrogate delegates for an amount totaling $1,000 without a waiver yet the party subsequently refused to make the waiver form available for examination or use ostensibly to burn the clock.

Read more at Ron Paul 2012 HERE.

Massive prosecutorial misconduct in Ted Steven’s case detailed in new report

The special prosecutor who examined the botched prosecution of Ted Stevens said he found evidence of willful concealment of information from the late Alaska senator’s defense lawyers on at least three occasions, according to a lengthy investigation published today.

That evidence, special prosecutor Henry “Hank” Schuelke III said, would have aided Stevens’ defense of public corruption charges in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two assistant U.S. attorneys, the report said, concealed information that went to the credibility of the government’s chief witness.

The report found that prosecutors in the Stevens case never conducted or supervised a comprehensive review of information that the government was obligated to provide to the Alaska senator’s defense attorneys.

The 525-page report digs into a host of issues, including discovery obligations and alleged mismanagement of the case. Supervisors decided the government would “have to play our cards close to the vest” in the prosecution, according to the report.

Schuelke, appointed by a Washington federal trial judge to investigate the Justice Department’s missteps, said that not only was the review for exculpatory information not supervised, “the prosecutors themselves were unsupervised.”

Read more at LegalTimes HERE.

RINO’s – including Murkowski – confirm radical anti-gun judge to federal bench

Last week, we alerted you to a radical anti-gun nominee President Obama named to the federal bench, Jesse Furman.

To no one’s surprise, Furman is cut from the same judicial cloth as other Obama nominees such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

For instance, in an article published a number of years ago—but from which Furman has not distanced himself—he writes that: “Probably the best explanation for the amount of violent crime in the United States is its fascination with guns.”

GOA members flooded the Senate with emails, and many Senators voted against Furman. But Majority Leader Harry Reid kept every single Democrat in lock-step with the Obama agenda, and Furman was confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the bench on a vote of 62-34.

Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC) joined all Democrats in voting for Furman.

This vote serves to highlight the difficulty in protecting the courts from anti-Second Amendment nominees who come before the Congress. Obama will continue to nominate far left gun grabbers, and Harry Reid will be his go-to guy for confirmation votes.

And if Obama wins a second term, his agenda will become only more brazen. That’s why a top goal of GOA in 2012 is to help elect as many truly pro-gun friends as we can to the U.S. Senate.

It is crucial that Harry Reid does not retain the gavel next year. But it is not enough to just elect members of the opposing party. We need to elect strong candidates who understand the Constitution and who will not bow to pressure from the White House—whoever the occupant may be—or from the leadership of either party in the Congress.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaskan Islands Belong to Russia? A Conversation with Joe Miller

A story this week in a World Net Daily opinion piece by former Republican U.S. Senate Candidate for Alaska, Joe Miller, has received huge attention from the blogosphere. I have spent some time on the telephone with Mr. Miller and want to pass on the new information clarified by him and other sources. The bottom line is, Russia has not ratified the proposed treaty thus, the US Senate’s 1990 consent to it can be withdrawn. Information about the Alaskan legislature’s attempt to redeem land they believe belongs to Alaska is at the bottom of this article. For reference, my original article is here at MaggiesNotebook.com.

The purported Agreement for the “island giveaway” was and is not a ratified treaty according to the public record. The official name (as shown on the document) is Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the maritime boundary, 1 June 1990. However, you’ll see below that the U.S. State Department in 2009 refers to it as a Treaty.

Before going farther, it’s important to note the reason this Agreement has been brought forward at this time, with accusations following that this is ‘nothing,’ not important…even that the agreement is a myth. The Agreement exists, signed by a U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 and ratified by Congress in June 1990, and signed by President G. H. W. Bush. Russia has not signed on, originally declaring that they would receive too little from it.

Secondly, it is important to know that the Agreement was negotiated completely in secret as far as we know. It began with Henry Kissinger when he was Secretary of State under President Gerald Ford. Ford left office in 1977. The U.S. ratification didn’t happen until June 1, 1990 under President G. H. W. Bush. ‘Ratification’ does not mean that Congress created legislation. It means that an ‘agent’ presented the language and Congress ‘ratified’ (consented to) it.

Today, there are those in U.S. political circles, and especially in Alaska, who want the Agreement to be declared null and void, by whatever action it takes for the U.S. Congress to do so. Efforts are in the works to try to make that happen, so that is why these islands, whether 5 or 7 or 8, are being discussed.

First came the 1867 Treaty wherein the U.S. purchased what was then Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, an area about twice the size of Texas. Article 1 in the 1990 Agreement refers to Article 1 of the 1867 Treaty/Convention:

From the 1990 Agreement:

Article 1

1. The Parties agree that the line described as the “western limit” in article 1 of the 1867 Convention, as defined in article 2 of this Agreement, is the maritime boundary between the United States and the Soviet Union.

2. Each Party shall respect the maritime boundary as limiting the extent of its coastal State jurisdiction otherwise permitted by international law for any purpose.

From the 1867 Treaty/Convention:

Article I

His Majesty the emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:

The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28-16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms:…(beginning at the pertinent information for this article)

[ceded to the U.S.] …thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and Copper island of the Kormandorski cuplet or group in the North Pacific ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.

At this point, it appears that Copper Island belongs to Russia. Copper is one of the islands disputed by Alaska. Russia wanted Bering Island almost adjacent to Copper. I think I’m correct in saying the 1867 Treaty made sure that Bering went to Russia. Both Bering and Copper are a part of the Commander Islands.

At several places I have read that the boundary line went between Bering and Copper Islands with Copper on the eastern and considered U.S. property. Here is one such statement by State Department Watch (I am not familiar with this site and cannot vouch for the information, but they have compiled quite a history. I recommend you go to them for much more detail):

Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock: These islands in the Bering Sea were acquired in 1867 from Russia. The treaty’s Article I language states, “…to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude [167 east], so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.” That meridian runs between Copper and Bering Islands at the westernmost end of the Aleutian islands. [See 1867 Treaty.]

The following is the State Department Watch map showing the boundary running between Bering and Copper. Look for the arrow on the left side that says “Copper Island, Sea Otter and Sea Lion Rocks.” The arrow points to a slash mark – that’s Copper and then a finger that is Bering Island. I believe the slash tracks running between the two islands show Copper on the U.S. side. Then look below to the next text that says “These Western and Eastern special areas are based on Russian sovereignty on Copper Island.”

If I understand it correctly, State Department Watch has said the boundary runs between the two islands, putting Copper on the east side, but the map says Copper is based on Russian sovereignty. Perhaps the 200 nautical miles requirement that you’ll see below, has something to do with it.

The coordinates mean nothing to me. I’ll just say that Copper Island and the adjacent rocks have miles of rich sea beds.

From 1990 Agreement:

Article 2

1. From the initial point, 65° 30′ N., 168° 58′ 37″ W., the maritime boundary extends north along the 168° 58′ 37″ W. meridian through the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea into the Arctic Ocean as far as permitted under international law.

2. From the same initial point, the maritime boundary extends southwestward and is defined by lines connecting the geographic positions set forth in the Annex, which is an integral part of this Agreement.

3. All geographic positions are defined in the World Geodetic System 1984 (“WGS 84″) and, except where noted, are connected by geodetic lines. (Read the entire agreement here)

[eyes glazed over]

In the 1990 Agreement the U.S. agreed that in any area east of the maritime boundary (the U.S. side) that lies within 200 nautical miles of the baselines of the territorial sea of the United States (known as Eastern Special Area) the United States is allowed to exercise its sovereign rights and jurisdiction as an exclusive economic zone.

On the west side of the boundary, known as the Russian side and the ‘Western Special Area,’ Russia is allowed to exercise its sovereign rights and jurisdiction as an exclusive economic zone.

In the June 1, 1990 Agreement, James Baker takes the “honor” to say that once the Agreement is in force, both governments will consider the boundary as in effect as of June 15, 1990. Russia did not sign. The Agreement has not taken effect.

Factions in Alaska wants the 1990 Agreement, that is a non-agreement, struck down or modified.

The above map was used in Joe Miller’s World Net Daily article. You can see Copper Island. The spot just above it and slightly to the left is Bering Island. This line clearly shows Copper on the west side (Russian territory) unless the 200 nautical mile from U.S. shores puts it in U.S. control

Wrangell Island: On August 12, 1881 a landing party off-loaded onto Wrangell Island from the  USRC (US Revenue Cutter) Corwin, and under the command of Calvin Hooper, claimed the island for the U.S. and named it New Columbia. John Muir, a Scottish-American was aboard the ship and is believed to be the first to describe Wrangell in writing. Later in 1881 the USS Rodgers landed on Wrangell.

In 1916 Tsarist Russia claimed Wrangell. In 1921 a Canadian team tried to make a claim for Wrangell. A group was left on the island, of which only an Alaskan woman hired as a cook and seamstress, survived. She lived alone on Wrangell for two years before being rescued by another Canadian. American Charles Wells was on the rescue ship and stayed on Wrangell along with 13 Intuits. In 1924 Russia removed Wells and the Intuits. In 1926 Russia, in some manner “reconfirmed” ownership of Wrangell. In 1926 a team of Russians landed with supplies and stayed (all of the above Wrangell information comes from Wikipedia – so take it for what it is)

From the U.S. State Department website dated September 8, 2009 (snippets):

The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed in 1990. The negotiations that led to that agreement did not address the status of Wrangel Island, Herald Island, Bennett Island, Jeannette Island, or Henrietta Island, all of which lie off Russia’s Arctic coast, or Mednyy (Copper) Island or rocks off the coast of Mednyy Island in the Bering Sea. None of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the United States, although Americans were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them…

…The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed in 1990. The negotiations that led to that agreement did not address the status of Wrangel Island, Herald Island, Bennett Island, Jeannette Island, or Henrietta Island, all of which lie off Russia’s Arctic coast, or Mednyy (Copper) Island or rocks off the coast of Mednyy [Copper] Island in the Bering Sea. None of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the United States, although Americans were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them.

The Russian Federation informed the United States Government by diplomatic note dated January 13, 1992, that it “continues to perform the rights and fulfill the obligations flowing from the international agreements” signed by the Soviet Union.

So there’s that. Russia has informed the U.S. that it “continues to perform” its rights without signing the Agreement, which the State Department says is a “treaty,” but not titled so and not ratified by Russia.

Some in Alaska and the U.S. Congress believe the U.S. has ownership of Wrangell. How much interest there is in fighting it out over Wrangell which lies to the north, I don’t know. The DeLong islands consisting of Jeannette, Bennett and Henrietta are in the same area, close to Siberia.

There has been disagreement over, according to which map the boundary line was drawn. Neither side can produce the original maps used in the Agreement. Amazing! Appalling!

The Alaskan 21st Legislature passed a joint resolution dated 1999-2000. They state that the state was not consulted in any way, did not consent in any way [snippets]:

WHEREAS the maritime boundary described in the proposed treaty agreement places 08 on the U.S.S.R. side the following eight islands and their entire territorial seas and seabeds: 09 Wrangell, Herald, Bennett, Henrietta, and Jeannette Islands in the Arctic, and Copper Island, 10 Sea Lion Rock, and Sea Otter Rock on the west end of the Aleutian Chain; and 11 WHEREAS the maritime boundary described in the proposed treaty agreement 12 delimits the territorial sea and seabeds of Little Diomede Island at less than the normal 3-mile 13 or 12-mile extent; and 14 WHEREAS Alaska has sovereignty and potential or actual property interests in these 01 islands and their territorial seas and seabeds; and 02 WHEREAS the Fifteenth Alaska State Legislature unanimously passed Senate Joint 03 Resolution 12, which requested that a representative of Alaska be included in the United States 04 Department of State’s negotiations on setting a maritime boundary between Alaska and the 05 Soviet Union; however, a reply was never received from the United States Department of 06 State, and a representative of Alaska was never included in the negotiations; and 07 WHEREAS the views of 28 bipartisan members of the Alaska House of 08 Representatives and eight bipartisan members of the Alaska Senate were expressed on the 09 proposed treaty agreement in a letter dated May 17, 1991, to Senator Joseph Biden, Jr., of the 10 United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, stating in part: 11 “We firmly believe United States interests and Alaskan interests are at stake 12 and in jeopardy in the proposed treaty. . .

No Alaskan official has ever been 13 invited to participate in the treaty negotiations, in spite of abiding Alaskan 14 interests in fisheries, petroleum and other potential continental shelf resources 15 and the considerations of navigation in the area. In the entire history of the 16 treaty negotiations, Alaska has had no official voice. Alaska has not been fully 17 consulted in the entire matter. . . It is our purpose to urgently recommend that 18 the presently-proposed treaty not be ratified by the U.S. Senate, and that 19 negotiations be continued to include appropriate Alaskan officials and current 20 United States and Alaskan historic, territorial, and resource interests”

There’s more. Read it here. At this link, you’ll see a letter from Alaska State Representative John Coghill to State Department Watch, thanking them for their participation.

In 1987 the Chicago Tribune  got wind of it, and didn’t like it, saying it was the “most serious foreign policy blunder since the Panama Canal giveaway.”

Look at this from the BBC dated September 2004 – just coming off of a Sustainable Development Conference – the world call foul:

The Baker-Shevardnadze line was immediately ratified by the US Congress, but the Soviet Union refused to do so because “it infringed Russia’s national interests”, the paper recalls.

Opponents of the agreement claim the deal handed the Americans an area whose stocks of the Alaskan pollack fish are worth $200m.

It also gave US nearly 50,000 sq km of mineral-rich continental shelf.

According to the Trud, the majority of Russian maps do not show the demarcation line.

“Moreover, this has not prevented the Americans from unilaterally tracking and detaining our fishing vessels, even in the buffer zone,” it claims.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta says the dispute has “every chance of becoming a major international scandal”.

Fishing is a big issue to Alaska, right now, and is part of the angst of the giveaway.

One of World Net Daily’s articles addressing these island is here, written by David M. Bresnahan, dated October 7, 2000. Visit Joe Miller’s Restoring Liberty here. Read his WND opinion piece here.

What we learn from this story is that a Secretary of State can engineer giving away sovereign land with no input from the U.S. Congress or the state holding ownership. The other side is, if the co-ordinates of the 1867 Treaty referring to the “western” and “eastern” boundaries clearly put all of the disputed islands on the Russian side, that’s a problem for the U.S. But then…apparently the style of map used can make a difference and the maps are no where to be found, and the style of map is not named. AND there are the explorers who claimed these islands for the U.S. AND Russia has not ratified. AND how about the  unconfirmed ‘rumors’ that the Obama administration is working to get Russia’s signature on the 1990 Agreement? One last question: if the 1867 Treaty set out the boundaries, why did we need the 1990 Agreement?

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama giving away Alaska’s oil rich islands to Russia

 

Author’s note:  This is not a new issue.  In fact the Bush & Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the US State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action.  Consequently, it is within the President’s power stop this giveaway.  The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the Administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration & is currently confronting the Obama administration – and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

************************************

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. 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 WND.com HERE.