Skip to comments.Obama Eyes Western Land for National Monuments, Angering Some
Posted on 02/19/2010 7:50:52 AM PST by sodpoodle
More than a dozen pristine landscapes, wildlife habitats and scenic rivers in 11 Western states, some larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined, are under consideration by the Obama administration to become America's newest National Monuments -- a decision the administration can make unilaterally without local input or congressional approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He just wants to build giant statues to his greatness all over the West... what’s the problem with that? are you racist of something!
Obama is a fool.
More and more land turned over to the government and removed from productive use: no mineral extraction, no energy production, no ranching — and these lands would be removed from the local property tax base.
Obama’s new national parks.
The Uinta basin
The Bakken field
According to internal Department of Interior documents leaked to a Utah congressman and obtained exclusively by Fox News, the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado — TOTALING MORE THAN 13 MILLION ACRES.
Putting oil and gold OFF-LIMITS!!
It makes quite a prop for a future debate as it is simply astonishing. Basically, half the continental US and 95 percent of Alaska are owned by Washington.
I think if most Americans saw that one map the tolerance for unilateralism in "protecting" more land in the U.S. would evaporate.
There's bound to be the equivalent map somewhere on the net.
Just another small step in Nobama’s destruction of America.
Wait a minute... there might be legal precedent. Of course! Land-snatching!
Land, land... "Land: see Snatch."
Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!
What about STATES’ RIGHTS in this equation?
The world is upside down;(
His unstated intention is to make them trash dumps for NYC, Detroit and Los Angeles.
Downtown Chicago would be a good place to take land off the tax rolls.
Yes to all. Thanks for noticing. It’s a scandal.
“More than a dozen pristine landscapes, wildlife habitats and scenic rivers in 11 Western states, some larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined...”
We all love a pretty view, what we object to is this federal takeover will bar access for most activities on these designated National Monuments. There will be restrictions on roads, trails, number of users per seasons, no timber management (cutting), no mining or drilling, no off road vehicles, hunting, etc. Plus, the federal payroll will grow as rangers and law enforcement will be hired.
Maybe, some federal funds would be better spent to help the states where the lands are do some preservation steps that would still allow fair use of the areas. Let the people who live there and know the needs make some decisions.
And I know off-roaders that keep voting for the rat scum because they just don’t get it.
I hope the Mad Max days come while I’m still alive...there are some greenies
that need a big cluestick delivered personally.
This is the issue that first led me to FreeRepublic. I was doing some searches for articles on economics back in 2002 (or was it 2001?) and came across a lengthy article on FR that said there is a good reason for Washington to be gobbling up all of the land it can in resource-laden areas... those resources are the collateral for our debts. They need more under their control to assuage the fears of foreign entity purchasers of our debt.
Why can’t we drill for our own oil or mine our own land? Because Washington has already used it for collateral.
Glenn Beck made a great comment yesterday... why did we buy Alaska in the first place? Did we see it as a great tourist destination? No! We bought it for its natural resources. Now, we aren’t allowed to go get them...
They have been doing this for years before he got there. The government grabs all it can.
This spin on this Clinton move is a complete load of crap.
This land is not remarkable in any environmental way. It's standard western scrubland.
The reason it needed to be "preserved" was because it was one of only two sources of sulfur free coal on earth and that coal needed to be kept of the market. This was a payoff to the Riady family of Indonesia, who own the only other major source of clean burning coal, making their coal much more valuable. The Riady family funneled millions in illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton reelection campaign.
I wonder who Obama is paying off with these moves.
backhoe, FYI ping in case you might find this of interest :)
The list, ping
EOG’s possible big N. Colorado oil find raising excitement
Wonder if the president will try and tie this up.
Glenn Beck said a few weeks ago that there is NO way we will ever be able to pay off the debt we owe china in money. It will be our land.
Taking land permanently out of the hands of private ownership do a number of negative things such as
>reducing the tax base forever, so the private sector must pay higher tax rates
>subject much more of our country to the whims of some federal bureaucracy such as Interior Dept to proclamations that are bizarre compared to most areas(”can’t pickup dead wood to prevent fires”, “no firearms in parks”, etc.)
>Most importantly, the reduction of people who own land means that there is less pride of individual ownership. Think of it as owning a home vs renting.
The individual who owns is typically more respective of individual rights, is against interference by govt and its intrusiveness into private affairs.
He is also typically wealthier and more independent than the renter.
We in Texas are very proud that we have such a low percentage of our lands in the hands of the federal beast.
Perhaps that is one reason we seem to be so conservative generally.
This is just more government takeover - land grab. Impeach Obama.
We should be selling Federal land to pay down the national debt NOT buying more!
When states and local governments lose the land, they lose the resources of that land and have lost any means of self reliance. NOT by accident. The west is a wholly owned subsidy of the federal government (and whoever owns them..like the chinese!)
I have a vague recollection of conservative commentators estimating how many hundreds of millions (or how many billions) of dollars the value of Riady family's coal investments went up with Clinton's single stroke of a pen.
As for the journalist saying he did it without telling the Arizona or Utah congressional delegation my memory is that Clinton had assured members of those delegations by phone that he was NOT going to do it only hours before doing it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, people.
The San Juan Islands a National Monument? They are a beautful place to visit, but do they realize the retrictions that come along with making a place a National Monument? Never mind, dumb question, I think they do.
Have you seen Prospero’s post #31?
The Western States have already lost their rights to their land.
Can any of this Federal land ownership be rescinded? How could that be accomplished?
I wonder what the republican hypocrites have to say about the monuments that Bush designated?
This is a different world. George Bush’s motives are not in question.
Barack Obama’s are.
When my son takes my car out of the garage - I know he’s about to check the oil, the tires and clean it for me.
When a total stranger takes my car out of the garage - I’m pretty sure he’s gonna steal it.
Good work Di;)
My pleasure. Sorry I can’t enlarge the chart of what all the colors mean, but I’m pretty sure the pink areas are the Indian Reservations, just based on knowing what’s in my state.
That is a good way to erase the National Debt /s
You are a hypocrite. And, you have many fellow hypocrites.
Are you a shoe bomber hypocrite also? Of course you are.
I have disparate alliances based on experience and other stuff.
Make Detroit a National Monument.
Whereas you solely own the car, you don't solely own the land.
And, of all the people that co-own that land with you, most favor adding protections to the land that they already co-own.
Which takes us back to Bush. Bush did what he did on the marine monuments because it was popular to do that and he wanted to show that he and republicans "cared" about the environment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.