Skip to comments.Republicans bristle at feds' land grab plan
Posted on 05/12/2010 9:04:07 AM PDT by Outside da Box
A tightly held administration plan to consider designating up to millions of acres of land in the West as national monuments has Western Republicans up in arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Is there anything Obama doesn’t want to control (besides the deficit?)
0bama, the left, and their ideological father want to solidify their dominion over everything on the earth,
especially God’s special creation - humans.
He knows that if you keep people out of the country and in the cities, you have more control of them. Simple as that. States need to stand up him and say no. The land belongs to the people of the states, not the Federal government.
I going to have go libertarian on this. The Federal Government should NOT own anything but the District of Columbia, military reservations, bases, and forts. Even the National Parks should belong to the states or the people.
I thought they already did this in January. In any case, it is a bad idea and will further reduce the states’ tax revenue mening that the states will have to raise taxes on eveybody else’s land.
That would make a great tag line!
Im thinking its time the US government sell all of its land; keeping only a few parks. Its just too much temptation to play eco-politics and that has been keeping the United States from developing its own resources. Had we started developing oil and gas 50 years ago, we would be the one building inside mountain skiing slopes in downtown Miami.
The land he wants to federalize is extremely rich in natural resources!!!
I have wondered if he is using these federal lands to secure the loans from China.
Maybe Republicans, when they have power again, should designate Berkley and Cambridge as “Green Belt National Monuments” and begin razing all of the structures. Those Green Belts need some cougars, wolves, and grizzlies to achieve a complete ecological balance. They can feed on the gentle herbivores (Vegans) that that they find in the area.
I had a similar thought but envisaged the entire States of Vermont and Massachusetts as new National Monuments
All part of scheme based off of Agenda 21 goals. Look it up.
Illegal aliens ?
Constitutional amendment to limit the amount of land the US government can own / control in an individual state anyone?
Agreed. Too few people know about these back room dealings designed to rob us of our birthright, while at the same time making it easier to gain complete control of the populace, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME reducing the population to pre-1940s levels.
And when I say "too few people", I include many FReepers, for whom this agenda is simply too radical, frightening, and ultimately anti-human too accept as valid.
It behooves all FReepers to educate yourselves about this nefarious plan.
What I was going to say. Nowhere does it say the Feds can "own" any land. It all belongs to the states. The feds should pay rent on any land that have installations on. Once an acquired piece of land becomes a state, the land belongs to the state, not the feds. I'm sure those in the original colonies felt that way. If you could ask them, I'll bet, to a man, they'd say the colony's land belongs to the people of that state and not to any fed government.
I'll even go so far as to say that if they knew the feds would claim rulership over that land, public AND private, the Constitution would never have passed into law.
I forgot that little detail. LOL
But didn’t Ken Burns tell me that national parks were America’s best idea (on public television, coincidentally)? because where else can I walk in nature? Lord knows, none of that exists outside of specially designated fed zones.
I suppose, though, if I went off on my own, I wouldn’t have some geek in a stupid hat telling me what genus of shrub I’m not paying attention to.
What’s that communist Manifesto say? Something about the Communist goal being summed up in one ideal: The abolition of private property.
I know it goes something like that.
So. I wonder what is under that land?
Oil, gas, perhaps coal? Gotta be something “evil” down there they want to lock up “for our own good.”
I like the National Parks. But sometimes things get so bad, you have to sacrifice the “good” to eliminate the bad. The Federal Government owning, and closing off, huge sections of the country is so bad, that the National Parks might have to go in order to head it off.
The National Parks are not really the issue here at all. Few in the west want to question the status of Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. (yes, libertarians often reject many current federal govt functions as unjustifiable, but in any case one need not reject the existing National Parks to question why we need the WH to keep expanding federal control in the west).
All of the actual “National Parks” combined add up to just a tiny % of the lands owned and controlled by the federal govt. Far more is under the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service etc. THOSE holdings are bloated and far too extensive — in many western states between 40 and 85% of ALL lands are under federal ownership or jurisdiction:
What the dishonest ‘Rats want to do is to use a provision that allows a President to declare a “National Monument” in order to lock up even more lands. When the Clintonistas declared a “National Monument” over vast stretches of lands in southern Utah, that was a gross violation of the purpose and obvious intent of the “National Monument” provision which was to preserve a small and unique geographic or historical item. Whatever one thinks of how that law had been used over the decades, NEVER had it been contemplated or used for locking away 1.9 MILLION acres (the so-called Grand Stairway Escalante National Monument which the Clinton frauds created in Utah).....