Who The Hell Do These People Think They Are?

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore. It is now a dictatorship. Whoops! Already accomplished. Then imagine that you wake up tomorrow and the President and our elites have given away part of the US. Then imagine it was your state and your state and Senators weren’t even consulted on it. In fact the deal was conducted in secret. Well, the nightmare is alive and well and being finalized for Alaska. But, before you go cursing ONLY Obama (as I do every damn chance I get), you better have a really hard look at Progressives on both sides of the aisle. This monstrous act of treason started under Bush Senior in 1990 and was ratified by our Senate in 1991. The only thing holding it back was that Russia had not signed the treaty. Obama is now looking to finish the diabolical deal.

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret 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. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

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.

More:

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.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia 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 address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

By Terresa Monroe Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

White House Immigration and Sovereignty Stand…

DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.

In an interview with CNN’s John King last week, Napolitano discussed Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., a strict enforcer of immigration laws who says he wants illegal aliens to be prosecuted and jailed.

King said: “A lot of Democrats in Congress want you to investigate him. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.”

Napolitano responded: “Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

“What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.”

The fact is, crossing the border without authorization is a crime. The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”

By: Jim Meyers - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:26 AM

Source:  Newsmax

Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S....

Quote: Why Does Obama Continue to Blame America???

Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S....

Quote: "A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping keep these cartels in business ... more than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States," President Barack Obama said Thursday. However, Fox News debunked this claim weeks ago: "It's just not true. In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S."

Fox Report: Mexican guns not from US

Only About 10% of Weapons Used By Mexican Drug Cartels Come From America Says Former Drug Czar William Bennett

William Bennett, former drug czar, verifies that the notion being floated by liberal media and the Obama administration, but disputed by most reliable sources, on the weapons used by Mexican Drug Cartels coming primarily from the United States ‘is false’!!!

Secretary of State Clinton and others have tried to push the notion that 90% of the weapons flowing into Mexico come from the United States. That has already been repudiated. In reality 90% of the weapons captured from the Cartels,that they could identify, were from the United States. That is because the United Stats is diligent at marking the weapons produced in the U.S. for identification which is now being used against us by our own government.

In reality only between 10% and 15% of all weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States; William Bennett said 10% in his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Situation Room. And if anyone should know, it would be William Bennett!

Dr. William Bennett serves as a political contributor and Republican strategist on CNN’s The Situation Room.

In addition to serving as a CNN contributor, Bennett is the host of a nationally broadcast radio show called Morning in America. In the 1980s, Bennett was the secretary of education and the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under President Ronald Reagan. Following that, he served as President George H.W. Bush's "drug czar." He currently serves as chairman of Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward.

Also an author, Bennett has written and edited 16 books, including The Book of Virtues and The Children's Book of Virtues. The success of The Book of Virtues led to the creation of a PBS series, seen in the United States, Great Britain and 65 other countries.

In April 2005, Bennett was described in the New York Times as the "leading spokesman of the Traditional Values wing of the Republican Party."

Bennett studied philosophy earning his bachelor’s degree at Williams College and his doctorate at the University of Texas. He earned his law degree from Harvard University. He is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute.

The Elephant in the Room: Obama vs. United States

The president is contemptuous of American values. And one key nominee prefers the judgment of other countries and global elites.

By Rick Santorum

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.

This seemingly obscure position in Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic maze is one of the most important in any administration, shaping foreign policy in the courts and playing a critical role in international negotiations and treaties.

Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.

What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a "transnationalist." He believes U.S. courts "must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ..." He thinks the courts have "a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law" and should "use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system."

Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.

Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites.

Unsurprisingly, Koh is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, which could subject U.S. soldiers and officials to foreign criminal trials for their actions while fighting for our security. He has recommended that American lawyers work to "undermine" official American opposition to the court.

If only Koh's transnationalism ended there. Our Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Koh believes it should be reinterpreted in light of foreign and international law to pay "decent respect to the opinions of humankind."

Old fogies like me believe we ought to pay more attention to the opinions of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the people who have lived under it. If Americans want to end the death penalty, they can do so through their elected state representatives.

If foreign opinions trump those of Pennsylvanians on capital punishment, why not on other issues? Why not, indeed: Koh thinks "international comity" trumps American sovereignty. He believes that, since certain nations recognize a right to same-sex marriage, our courts should, too. He wrote that "the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes."

What's beneath this legal jargon? Simply this: Even if marriage in Pennsylvania has always been understood as involving one man and one woman - even if Pennsylvanians, through referendum or constitutional amendment, decide it should remain so - none of that should count. What should count are the views of courts in other nations or international bodies.

"I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who used the wrong reasoning in Roe to get the right results," Koh wrote of the landmark abortion case, "and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Stunning and revealing: Koh tells us it doesn't matter if the right to abortion can be found in the Constitution. In fact, he concedes that Blackmun's reasoning was wrong. But it is up to others to get it right. How? By finding out what the United Nations, European Union, or particular European nations think.

Koh tops the list of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• The Humbling of a Superpower