Posted on 02/12/2011 10:33:40 PM PST by wheresmyusa
Which is more important: reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy sources, or add 2.85 million acres to the existing 200 million acres of protected areas? According to the United Nations, 27% of the total land area in the United States is already locked up in some kind of protected area and 67% of the total marine area. This means, of course, that there can be no development of energy or other natural resources in 27% of the nation’s land and 67% of the nation’s marine resources.
Only the most avid preservationist, or the most anti-American, could possibly choose to lock up the nation’s natural resources rather than to develop them. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to block readily available and affordable energy development while subsidizing, at great public expense, the development of exotic energy sources such as wind and solar. There is much more than the discredited global warming scare driving this ongoing obsession to lock up natural resources. Control of the use of land includes control of the use of natural resources
The goal is control. In order to control people, the government must control the use of land. Control of the use of land includes control of the use of natural resources. Energy is the fuel that produces prosperity, and the government bureaucracy has decided that it will control access to energy by controlling the use of land and marine resources.
Since the Carter administration, the land management agencies of the federal government have been taken over by environmental extremist organizations...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
What’s locked can be unlocked.
Mineral access, including energy production, coal, oil and gas, and uranium.
Food, as in farming and ranching, even wild game, fish, and food plants.
People: the more urbanized and dependent you can make them, the easier they are to control.
Timber, building materials, etc...
Agenda 21 is being imposed on America by these radicals. You'll find it on the UN website, they don't even hide it any more. The 'wildlands' that Interior Secretary Salazar has decreed he has the power to create (Secretarial Order 3310, Dec 22, 2010) have the same weight as Wilderness Areas designated by Congress and may have the same restrictions imposed, just without any Congressional approval required.
This crap extends from the Federal Level right down to the lowliest HOA, and Americans have been rolling over before it like hail damaged grain.
The seizure of especially western lands is one of the most onerous and oppressive of the federal oppressions directed against the States. Yet how many Republicans so much as mention their opposition to this, or call for the return of those lands?
Even the Tea Party has not made a great issue of it. Yet each and every president now, Democrat or Republican, has seized more land from the States by dictatorial fiat. Without challenge, ever.
Why is that? More importantly, who among our representatives will not just make it stop, but restore those lands to their rightful owners?
Which is more important: reduce America's dependence on foreign energy sources, or add 2.85 million acres to the existing 200 million acres of protected areas? According to the United Nations, 27% of the total land area in the United States is already locked up in some kind of protected area and 67% of the total marine area. This means, of course, that there can be no development of energy or other natural resources in 27% of the nation's land and 67% of the nation's marine resources.So, any more doubt about whether Zero means well but is a bungler vs he's just trying to destroy the United States? Thanks wheresmyusa.
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.