Obama set to cede oil-rich Alaska islands to Russia
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....
Fact Check wrote: Q: Is President Obama giving away several Alaskan islands to Russia?
A: No. The U.S. has never claimed ownership of the islands identified in viral emails and websites. They lie far closer to the coast of Siberia than to Alaska.
R. K. Borill wrote: Who says he is not a communist when he makes a move like this? This is a token of good will between commrades and another betrayal to the American people whom he hates.
I tend to agree with you more than the others on this thread, especially when I consider Obama's cancellation of the missile shield in Europe, appointment of Van Jones and the lady that praised Mao, and the open-mike comments Obama made to Medvidev a few weeks ago about being able to do more after he's elected to a 2nd term. Even if Obama isn't communist out right he sure seems to be awfully sympathetic to them.
Dreadnought wrote: One set of ungodly rants deserves another.
Apparently, I need a emoticon for sarcasm, :-7 Did you read, FactCheck.org: No Obama conspiracy to give Alaska ? ( . } You would have noted, if you had I was just pointing out that this Alaskan source stated that the two Alaskan Senators supported this move to give these islands to the Russians. I was just stating in the same way, the message that preceded mine.
Actually, except for the well noted missteps the first President Bush did, I was also being sarcastic about him being paid off.
So dreadnought, I would suggest you read some of the references given before complaining about a statement.
No, I am simply highlighting evidence contrary to the fallacious rant in your original post below.
1. Obama has made no "move". 2. The consistent and long established position of the US government over many decades does not make Obama a communist. 3. Obama and Putin are not comrades. 4. He has made no betrayal of the American people in this matter. 5. Obama has not demonstrated any hatred in this decision, 6. but you are demonstrating hatred in your fallacious rant. 7. The same facts apply to George HW Bush as well as Obama. Your "logic" would require you to say "Who says Bush is not a communist when he made a move like this?". But you don't. Your ungodly rant is one of sinful partiality.
R. K. Borill wrote: Who says he is not a communist when he makes a move like this? This is a token of good will between commrades and another betrayal to the American people whom he hates.
btw - look up oligarchy, it is perfectly consistent with capitalism. btw2 - if the facts do matter to you, demonstrate it by repenting of your fallacious rant.
Dreadnought wrote: There's just no arguing with well argued "logic" like that concerning super rich capitalist oligarchs. In any event, Obama is not giving anything away. But the facts wont matter to you.
Is it logical or fallacious to equate capitalism with oligarchy or that all capitalists are "super rich"? If you going to enter a logical debate, you'd better brush up on your logic, otherwise "you are bringing a knife to a gun fight.". Btw that last statement was a fallacious argument, fyi
R. K. Borill wrote: Dreadnought wrote: Why would giving something away to a capitalist make him a communist in your eyes? btw - Obama is American and you seem to hate him. Motes and beams, sir! If you think Putin is a Capitalist, . . . the defense rests your honor.
There's just no arguing with well argued "logic" like that concerning super rich capitalist oligarchs.
In any event, Obama is not giving anything away. But the facts wont matter to you.
Jim Lincoln wrote: No it was one of those Bushes again H. W. gave those islands to the Russians It those commie Bushes that sold us out to the Russians! FactCheck.org: No Obama conspiracy to give Alaska . No doubt the Bush family will get paid off of a cut from the oil proceeds?
No it was one of those Bushes again H. W. gave those islands to the Russians It those commie Bushes that sold us out to the Russians! FactCheck.org: No Obama conspiracy to give Alaska . No doubt the Bush family will get paid off of a cut from the oil proceeds?
R. K. Borill wrote: Who says he is not a communist when he makes a move like this? This is a token of good will between commrades and another betrayal to the American people whom he hates.
Agreed. He hates Capitalism, Christianity, America and all it stands for.
Typical white person. That is how he described his grandmother.
David too, I am having a very nice day, thank you.
You really think the American people wish to wage the war necessary to wrest control of these Russian administered islands?
"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.[38] The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush."
Dreadnought wrote: Leaving aside your evident anachromism it is unfortunate that YOU did not read the article in order to respond to my question to you.
Sermonaudio links to worldnewstribune.com which links to times247.com which links to the original source article at WND.com from 2 months ago. WND report: "Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. 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 to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable." Did you read that even WND acknowledges that these islands are "disputed"? Is Bush a communist and a traitor too? No more than Obama or the Tsar in 1867. And you folks need to stop ranting and engage your brains.
Since YOU seem to have no problem with secret deals done regardless of the will of the people.What will YOU say when the government decides YOU don't own your own property anymore and choose to redistribute it to others?
David too wrote: If you can't see that quoting the rest of the article is a rebuttal of your post,then you've already fallen for the Hoax and CHAINS of this regime.
Leaving aside your evident anachromism it is unfortunate that YOU did not read the article in order to respond to my question to you.
Dreadnought wrote: How many US Presidents would have exercised a veto?
Sermonaudio links to worldnewstribune.com which links to times247.com which links to the original source article at WND.com from 2 months ago.
WND report: "Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. 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 to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable."
Did you read that even WND acknowledges that these islands are "disputed"?
Is Bush a communist and a traitor too? No more than Obama or the Tsar in 1867. And you folks need to stop ranting and engage your brains.
Dreadnought wrote: David too, Why quote my comment and then fail to respond to it? The work of this was all internal state department work. How many US Presidents would have exercised a veto?
If you can't see that quoting the rest of the article is a rebuttal of your post,then you've already fallen for the Hoax and CHAINS of this regime.
Was the Tsar a "communist" and a "traitor" when he sold Alaska to the United States?
You folks need to stop ranting and engage your brains for a moment.
David too, Why quote my comment and then fail to respond to it?
Dreadnought wrote: Why would giving something away to a capitalist make him a communist in your eyes? btw - Obama is American and you seem to hate him. Motes and beams, sir!
Since you mention it, the article notes that this work was all internal state department work. How many US Presidents would have exercised a veto? US States have no jurisdiction in federal matters and should respect the Constitution.
COMMENTS | 
it was one of those Bushes again 
