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.
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.