Is it enough, does it mean something?
I support Ted, but talk has been cheap on this issue for too many years.
Ammon Bundy wanted land transfer when he led the protest in Harney County, Oregon last month, I do remember that.
If they gave fed lands to my state (Illinois) the state would sell it to the highest bidder when it goes bankrupt.
Then... they’d give that money to the unions tenfold, and get in debt again.
Cruz is right, again. This is a time for Ted Cruz. America needs to wake up, ignore the bait and switch candidate, get back to the constitution and God. The alternative, well, it’s not pretty. All other candidates except Cruz are progressives, you can’t trust progressives.
The constitution is clear on federal land ownership, it LIMITS it to ports, forts and 10 square miles (D.C.). In Alaska the feds have taken over 80% of the state.
Cruz is full of crap on this. He has not introduced a single bill during his time as senator to correct this tyranny. He is just another lying lawyer....his wife is up to her eyeballs in the Agenda 21/Wildlands Project/North American Union/TPP globalist nonsense.
Most people will agree that this was some idea dreamed up a hundred years ago to preserve the “look” of the west. No one can cite anything except fiction over the logic to this. One could truthfully say that if the 50-to-80 percent federal ownership gimmick was applied to all fifty states....it’d make for a very interesting map. So it is a 35-state thugism thing against roughly fifteen states.
My solution to this is simple. Make an absolute limit for the next fifty years of some percentage of federal property....maybe 35-percent....maybe 50-percent. Offer half the property freely back to the states themselves, and sell the rest at 150-acre parcels....limiting one single person or corporation one parcel to purchase a year (note: they have to establish a house or cabin on it within three years and live them for a minimum of thirty days out of the year, and not some representative but the owner on the deed).
I might also go one step further...offering 300-acre allotments to individuals who can prove their one-hundred percent Indian status.
I’d also leave the National Parks alone...just ordering them to halt additions and just admit we’ve got more than enough.
Transferring federal land to the states is not “dumping.”
I agree with that for the most part.
Sell some of the land at market prices with $ to pay down the debt, $ not to be used for any other purpose.
I wonder what Henry George would say.
Federal gub mint lays claim to over 80 percent of the entire west.
The people ought to take back about 75 percent of that.
To hell with the feds.
Worthless bunch of leaches.
I agree, sell all excess land and use the proceeds to pay down the debt.
This issue is important. Federal land grabs give power not only to the Federal Government, but to the Executive Branch in particular. It’s part of how we end up with Clintons and Obamas.
It’s imminent domain on steroids, with no public purpose, only a federal government centralist purpose .States’ rights will never be truly restored until these lands are returned to the states. The people within those states could then decide to “protect” or sell off to private interests. It’s disenfranchisement in the extreme.
The grabs are always a sop to the environmentalists, and, as such, part of the liberal war on capitalism. There’s more than meets the eye on this issue.
In the case of Bundy it didn't seem that the issue was federal ownership of the land. It's that they deprived cattle ranchers of their long-standing access to it.
I think they can’t give it back to the states because it’s been pledged as collateral to foreign governments in the event we default on our debt.
If over half of New York or Florida were Fed owned like some of the mountain states, you can be sure it would be a topic of discussion.
I think we’re finally hitting ‘critical mass’ on the federal lands issue. The Oregon Republican Party just came out with a very strong resolution demanding the release of federal land back to the states. I’ve been bringing it up as an issue with every politico I’ve had the chance to meet.
And the UN needs to move to Syria, or Iraq or even peace loving Tran
Ted Cruz campaigned in Idaho yesterday and this is what he said about federal land in the West.
_______________________________
I am in favor of the States getting control of land except:
1. The states will divvy the land up among each states “favorite sons”. How will he deal with that?
2. Can the land be sold to foreign countries like Reid was doing in Nevada?
3. I can tell you who will benefit in Utah. We have State Trust land in Utah now and good luck trying to keep it honest.
4. What safeguards to protect the states from corrupt influence?
5. Who will protect the Federal lands from one of Ted Cruz’s largest donors? $15 Million from the Wilks family
The Bureau of Land Management won’t move forward with a controversial and high-profile land exchange in Montana proposed by the Wilks Ranch, which would have given the BLM permanent public access to land in the Missouri River Breaks but taken away public land in central Montana.
Donating to the Cruz campaign is not a charitable, selfless cause.