Posts

Alaska’s Governor & Delegation, Party to Empowering Tyrants & Terrorists

/4 Comments/in , /by

Do we want to redistribute America’s wealth to State sponsors of terrorism while hamstringing our defenses? Passing the Law of the Sea Treaty would do just that, enabling the United Nations to further raid America’s treasury, rob her sovereignty, and further empower the despots of the UN.

Here’s a question for the two Senators from Alaska: why would you be a party to empowering the tyrants and terrorists of the United Nations? Why would Alaska’s Governor Sean Parnell and Lt Governor Mead Treadwell also favor passing this treaty?

Our state’s leadership supports a treaty that would be catastrophic for America.

There have been three UN conventions on the Law of the Sea (LOST), the first in 1956, the second in 1960 (both held in Geneva, Switzerland), and the third in New York, 1973. The third convention finally concluded in 1982. The international treaty became enforceable in November, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty. 162 countries have ratified LOST.

In its current form, the Law of the Sea consists of 17 parts, containing 320 articles and 9 annexes, governing ocean space, boundaries, environmental control, marine research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and royalties, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters.

In past administrations, the main obstacles to US Senate ratification have been the provisions in Part XI, articles 133 through 191 of LOST defining the area subject to international jurisdiction, and part VI, article 82, describing royalty distribution. All disputes would be resolved at an international tribunal headquartered in Hamburg, Germany.

The US Senate has never ratified the treaty. The Obama administration recently revived it and, although the Senate didn’t actually vote on it, LOST supporters were only one vote short of the 67 needed to ratify it (in the US, treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the President’s signature). LOST is sometimes called the ‘Zombie treaty’ because it keeps resurfacing after being rejected by the US Senate.

From my perspective, one of the biggest problems with the treaty is its re-distributive policies. America’s generosity has always been superior to that of any other country. Americans have freely given untold sums of aid to those in need. But now the US is supposed to sign a treaty mandating that Americans must give more, potentially sending trillions of dollars to ‘less developed’ countries, some of whom are known state sponsors of terrorism!

Resource exploration and development in effect becomes distribution of wealth to an ‘international authority.’ Of course, the resource extraction itself can only be done after receiving permission from that ‘authority’ to do so. Beyond our Continental shelf or ‘exclusive economic zone’, a percentage of revenue from resource production such as oil, would be distributed to the UN.

Resource development thus becomes the fuel for global power, a power that will further raid America’s wealth, redistributing it as well as the LOST resource revenues, to our enemies across the world.

I am also very concerned that ratifying LOST would greatly degrade America’s defense capability. The security of our allies throughout the world would be compromised. Access to ocean or maritime areas presently used and protected by the US Navy could be lost as sovereignty is lost to the UN. At risk is peace and liberty for many countries. America must not submit to the power of despots within the United Nations.

As noted above, not only does Governor Parnell and Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell strongly favor LOST, both of our US Senators do as well. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., is pushing for ratification of the treaty, with a vote planned for the lame-duck session after the November elections. Alaska’s two Senators have said they’ll vote for it.

When you analyze treaties such as the ‘Law of the Sea’, the ‘UN arms treaty’, or proposals and policies found in things like the UN’s ‘Agenda 21’, or Coastal zone management, you find a common thread binding them together: internationalism. Either our elected representatives are ignorant, corrupted by special interests that gain from the new regimes, or they are globalists. More likely, they’re a bit of each.

Extremism in the Defense of RINOism Is No Virtue

/3 Comments/in , /by

Politics is a funny thing. Sometimes, the seemingly counterintuitive can become the reality, what you would not expect – based upon common sense – nevertheless is what happens. Much of this has to do with the fact that in a political system such as ours, it is easy for factional interests to become entrenched, pursuing politics for the sake of remaining in power rather than for the good of those they claim to represent. In such cases, you will find the entrenched power acting in ways that, to the uninitiated, often seem obtuse and nonsensical.

Such seems to be the case with the Republican Party. Conservatives have observed time and time again that the Party which supposedly represents their interests in our system nevertheless seems to take them for granted. Worse than this, often the entrenched interests within the Party hierarchy – commonly referred to collectively as the Establishment or the “GOP-E” – seem to be actively hostile to conservatives within the Party, often going to great lengths to stifle and block them at every turn.

There are few places where this becomes more apparent than in the way the GOP-E deals with conservative candidates who defeat moderate, Establishment candidates in primary races, or who misstep and provide an opening to the GOP-E for attack. Indeed, the Republican Party seems to be the only Party in living memory that actively seeks to destroy the electoral chances of its own candidates just to enforce the entrenched Establishment’s vision for the Party. In doing so, they don’t just hurt conservatives within their Party, but they actual help the Democrats retain seats and have greater opportunity to damage the nation as a whole.

The Democrats certainly don’t do this. Instead, that Party is more than happy to run seemingly right-leaning candidates in conservative districts in an effort to bolster their own chances for taking and retaining power. In 2008, a goodly portion of the Democratic wave was made up of quasi-conservative office-seekers attacking Republicans from their right flank, taking conservative congressional districts all across the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West – traditionally areas of Republican strength. The GOP-E, for its part, has no problem reminding conservatives that in left-leaning districts, the Republicans who run need to be more towards the center – and in this they have a valid argument, up to a point. Yet, the GOP-E seems to also want centrist or liberal candidates for the Republican Party even in districts and states that conservatives can easily win. Hence, the seemingly nonsensical push for thoroughly unnecessary “moderate” Republicans, which only ends up undermining conservative enthusiasm, loyalty to the Party, and ultimately donation and turnout on Election Day. The GOP-E goes to great lengths to undercut conservative candidates across the country, placing its own narrow Establishment interests ahead of those of the nation and the Party as a whole.

Take, for instance, the curious case of Todd Akin, running for the Senate in Missouri. Read more from this story HERE.

Did Lisa Murkowski Cause the Alaska Republican Party to Adjourn Prematurely in Fairbanks? (+video)

/5 Comments/in , /by

The Alaskan Republican Party central committee meeting in Fairbanks on Saturday, September 22, 2012, adjourned after only an hour. Yesterday, we suggested that the premature adjournment reflected the dysfunction of the state party. But some suspect the early adjournment by out-going ARP Chairman Randy Ruedrich was intentional, so as to avoid any vote on a pending censure resolution against Senator Lisa Murkowski.

One attendee, an ARP District Chair, wrote down his observations of the Saturday meeting. Here’s his description of what happened after the initial roll call, invocation, and pledge of allegiance:

At approximately 0930 Mr. Ruedrich moved to the Treasurers Report. It was at this time that Alaska Republican Party Treasurer Mr. Frank McQueery stood and stated that Mr. Daniel Palmer had been recording the entire event and was live streaming onto You Tube. He stated he was not comfortable with the live streaming as this was a private organization discussing political strategy.

A motion was made to have the video stopped and the vote was overwhelming to stop recording. At this point Mr. Palmer started discussion on the subject citing his right to record the meeting. Another member pointed out that anything broadcast on You Tube is on a permanent record. Various other members became involved at this point, pointing out the fact that it was being broadcast worldwide and they were not comfortable with speaking live on YouTube.

National Committeeman Ralph Seekins said he agreed he could record his own private conversation but did not believe it was right to record other people without their consent. He also noted that the event was not public but was a private event of the Republican Party.

The motion to restrict the recording of this and future meetings of the SCC was called and passed. The Chairman requested that the video be stopped and Mr. Palmer declined. At that time, following additional comments from the party Treasurer, a motion was made to remove Mr. Palmer from the meeting and recess the meeting until that was done.

Chairman-Elect Russ Millette approached Mr. Palmer and told him that he had voted against the motion to stop the recording but asked him to stop the recording because it was going to create problems for party unity. Mr. Palmer refused to cooperate and said he would continue the recording. Chair-Elect Millette again said, “I’m asking you again nicely to reconsider”. But Mr. Palmer still refused.

Following additional time the meeting was called back to order and a motion to adjourn was made by the proxy vote for Don Young and was seconded. Mr. Ruedrich called for a vote from the few people remaining in the room and the motion to adjourn passed.

This type of action was completely detrimental to the Alaska Republican Party as a whole. We have approximately 42 day’s left to win the election and at the present time Obama has 269 confirmed electoral votes. The fact is, we will not win this election as a divided party.

For the video of the Fairbanks SCC meeting, click HERE.

Murkowski wants to sneak through Law of the Sea Treaty in lame duck session this fall

/9 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) says she’s hopeful that the Law of the Sea Treaty will pass Congress in the lame-duck session after the election, despite the fierce opposition of some conservatives.

Murkowski told The Associated Press the sea treaty will have better prospects in the Senate when the fall campaign is over. The global maritime pact would establish de facto rules for the nation’s oceans, and business interests say it will create opportunities for offshore drilling.

“This is a treaty that I believe very strongly will contribute not only to our national security, but will allow us a level of certainly in accessing our resources in the north,” Murkowski said.

Murkowski and Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) both support the treaty, and Murkowski has championed several other efforts to tap the state’s natural resources. The untapped deepwater oil and natural gas off Alaska’s coast could be a significant economic boon for The Last Frontier and the entire nation, she and many of her Republican colleagues argue.

“I don’t want us, as an Arctic nation, to abandon those opportunities, and we would be doing that if we fail to ratify the Law of the Sea treaty,” Murkowski said.

Read more from this story HERE.

Law of the Sea Treaty, Supported by Alaska’s Governor, Lt. Governor & Congressional Delegation, now DOA

/2 Comments/in , /by

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.

The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraka, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit:  Department of Defense

Why the “most honest 3 minutes on TV ever” is a lie (+video)

/257 Comments/in , , , /by

Have you seen this video yet?  You’ve got to check out the clip below.  It’s of a new show “The Newsroom”, on HBO, staring Jeff Daniels, and written and directed by the guy who gave us the idealized version of a democratic administration in “The West Wing,” Aaron Sorkin.

I know we are probably of like minds on this, but let me vent here. Indulge me.

In the clip below, the Jeff Daniels character sits on a panel at college event, when a student asks the question: “Why do you think America is great?” The woman to the left of Daniels gives a drab, center-left answer and the man to his right (portrayed as the conservative) simply states, “Freedom and Freedom.”

But then, Jeff Daniel’s character shocks the audience and the moderator by challenging the question itself.  He goes into an aggressive monologue about why America isn’t great anymore.  The audience is left with the choice of the partisan vagaries uttered by the two panelists, or Jeff’s speech on why we are no longer great, but used to be.  Watch the clip (caution: it contains profanity) and then see what your take is:


Ok, did you watch it?  No seriously, watch it now.

So here’s my take.  Firstly, my vote on the best answer goes to the guy who said “Freedom” twice. Simple, and effective, he nailed it.  The problem, as is so often the case, the left, and Sorkin in this case, are so full of themselves, so intent on satisfying their own intellectual ego, that there can be no truth, no solution, no revelation, unless THEY thought of it.

So we get a demeaning of the word “Freedom,” and a lecture from Daniels on, ironically, all things moral?!

Jeff Daniels is woefully ignorant (or rather Aaron Sorkin who apparently wrote the monologue) of what Freedom actually means, and is completely oblivious to things like socialism, government regulation, personal liberty, etc. and what they mean relative to that word “Freedom.”  He also seems blissfully unaware of immigration statistics and the enormous number of people still desperate to come to the US, as opposed to Canada, Belgium, Australia, or other western countries.

“War on Poor People,” that’s what we have? If so, blame the class warfare and welfare state created by those that Sorkin supports and adores as heroes on the left.  You want to start a “War on Poverty,” then deregulate, and reduce the tax burden on those doing the work and those starting the businesses that employ people.  Make a competitive environment for business, instead of casting them as the enemy, and you will have jobs and prosperity, and sense of self worth instilled in your citizenry.

You don’t “fight” poverty anyway, you increase prosperity. There’s a real difference — but the significance of that difference is lost on left wing idealists who live in Hollywood and DC and have no comprehension of starting and running a small business, and don’t have the time in their egocentric lives to even take an academic interest in the beliefs of those who founded, and made this country great, or who fight for its greatness still today.

Sorkin may or may not fit into that category of Hollywood and DC liberal, but his portrayal of folks I know and have worked with — like those in the Tea Party, loving patriots who cherish the Constitution — his assertion that they are the “problem” only serves to point out how truly upside down this line of thinking is.

He uses the language, and speaks of “morality” through his surrogate, Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels’ character), but has no idea what the word means.  There is no morality without God, and yet he scoffs at this notion and implies that America leads the world in ignorance because it has the most citizens per capita that believe in angels.

America may not be the greatest country in the world anymore — after the last presidential election, and in Alaska, the last senatorial election, I certainly have my doubts — but it’s not for any of the reasons that Sorkin sites. If Sorkin really wants to return to American greatness, maybe he should start at the start, and look at the men and words of its foundation, and search for the heart of what made us great, in the words and deeds of the men who fought and died creating and protecting it, instead of plying leftist propaganda in pseudo-intellectual elitist centrist wrapping, and calling it a return to the “good old days.”

The “good old days” weren’t always good, but their core values were: a country that cherished the rights of the individual over the rights of the state, that trusted God, not Government, as their ultimate arbiter of morality.  The people of that era weren’t great because they were informed, per se, as Sorkin asserts, they were great because they read the bible, feared God, and loved liberty.  It was those qualities that drove them to become informed.  But information without the will and the moral wisdom to act on it is useless.

Liberty gave them that will, and God that wisdom.  Sorkin can’t, or rather his intellectual elitist egotism won’t let him see that.

That’s my take. What do you think?

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

Dr Walter Campbell is a lifelong Alaskan, former Marine, and physician.

 

Murkowski supporter makes history: first legislative candidate to be kicked off ballot for claiming to be “homeless”

/0 Comments/in /by

Barbara Bachmeier, a candidate for the legislature, was kicked off the ballot by Alaska’s Division of Elections, for being homeless.  More specifically, she did not meet the residency requirements for state house District 13 because, as recently as ten months ago, she had been “living in a camper shell on the back of her truck,” according to Newser.

Some suspect that Bachmeier was not homeless at all, but that she was actually living in another residence outside of the district.  They believe that the story about her living out of her truck was fabricated in an unsuccessful attempt to meet the district’s residency requirements.

The decision to give her the boot from the ballot after she had already been certified may be unprecedented in Alaska state history.   The Division of Elections reported yesterday that such decertification has not happened during the current director’s four year tenure, maybe longer.

Ms. Bachmeier, a former service member who claims a stress-related disability, was a prominent Murkowski supporter who harassed Joe Miller personally as well as some of his supporters in 2010.  In one particularly infamous event following the general election debate in October, Bachmeier followed Mr. Miller’s party out of the parking lot and tail-gated Miller’s vehicle at high speeds.

Photo credit: BarbaraBachmeier.com