Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans bristle at feds' land grab plan
The Politico ^ | 5/12/2010 | Marin Cogan

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bishop; chaffetz; hastings; landgrab; propertyrights; salazar

1 posted on 05/12/2010 9:04:08 AM PDT by Outside da Box
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

Is there anything Obama doesn’t want to control (besides the deficit?)


2 posted on 05/12/2010 9:06:17 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

0bama, the left, and their ideological father want to solidify their dominion over everything on the earth,
especially God’s special creation - humans.


3 posted on 05/12/2010 9:08:12 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

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.


4 posted on 05/12/2010 9:09:44 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box
Unfortunately, Mike Simpson, Jim Risch and Mike Crapo (Idaho) are supporting a bill that makes the White Cloud mountain area "wilderness". It is already federally protected, but is currently completely accessible for motorized recreation on established roads. The "wilderness" designation excludes use by any manner of vehicles. There is no justification for this. It is simply a land grab for control by the tree hugging commies.
5 posted on 05/12/2010 9:11:24 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.


6 posted on 05/12/2010 9:12:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.


7 posted on 05/12/2010 9:12:46 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Is there anything Obama doesn’t want to control (besides the deficit?)

That would make a great tag line!

8 posted on 05/12/2010 9:14:07 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC2
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.

Bears repeating.

9 posted on 05/12/2010 9:16:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long..." -- Paul Campos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I’m thinking it’s time the US government sell all of its land; keeping only a few parks. It’s 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.


10 posted on 05/12/2010 9:17:46 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.


11 posted on 05/12/2010 9:18:47 AM PDT by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.


12 posted on 05/12/2010 9:21:36 AM PDT by darth (c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darth

I had a similar thought but envisaged the entire States of Vermont and Massachusetts as new National Monuments


13 posted on 05/12/2010 9:27:49 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

All part of scheme based off of Agenda 21 goals. Look it up.


14 posted on 05/12/2010 9:28:13 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Illegal aliens ?


15 posted on 05/12/2010 9:32:33 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

Constitutional amendment to limit the amount of land the US government can own / control in an individual state anyone?


16 posted on 05/12/2010 9:35:11 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
"...All part of scheme based off of Agenda 21 goals...."

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.

17 posted on 05/12/2010 9:37:35 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns (Novare Res!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
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.

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.

18 posted on 05/12/2010 9:49:05 AM PDT by jeffc (One Big A$$ Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jimt

I forgot that little detail. LOL


19 posted on 05/12/2010 9:54:08 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

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.


20 posted on 05/12/2010 9:55:04 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.


21 posted on 05/12/2010 10:26:32 AM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outside da Box

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.”


22 posted on 05/12/2010 10:51:16 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

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.


23 posted on 05/12/2010 1:28:16 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray; Tublecane

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:

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/federal%20land%20ownership—may%202005.pdf

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).....


24 posted on 05/12/2010 1:47:43 PM PDT by Enchante (Dean Elena Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard Law campus while Americans dies at war!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson