1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Obama's plan to seize 50 million acres....

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Mar 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Obama

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/

    The Washington Times

    Originally published 06:15 p.m., March 2, 2010, updated 10:38 p.m., March 2, 2010

    DEMINT: White House land grab

    Sen. Jim DeMint

    You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

    A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

    President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

    At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that's exactly what's happening.

    The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, "might be good candidates" for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it's more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

    Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

    The 21-page document, marked "Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE," names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as "monuments" under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

    It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states' rights.

    Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn't want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

    President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

    One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

    President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior's real estate shopping list.

    This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to "avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered."

    In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a "center of climate change scientific research."

    In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is "currently under the threat of oil and gas development."

    Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states' freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

    That's why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as "monuments." Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

    It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.

    This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation's total land.

    Federal bureaucrats shouldn't be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession. Taking the nation's resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.

    If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up. By voting against my amendment, the Democrats tacitly endorsed Mr. Obama's secret plan to close off millions more acres to commerce.

    If enacted, the plan would mean fewer jobs for Americans.

    The Democratic Congress refused to stop it, but one sure way Americans could help block it is if they decide some Democrats should lose their jobs on November.

    Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators
     
  2. Leo

    Leo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,051
    I don't know about making a quick buck, because only the bankers who own obammy seem to be getting rich. SOMEONE needs to figure a way to make a buck, we lost another 469,000 jobs last month. There will not be anyone owning anything if we do not have jobs that are profitable enough to pay taxes with.
     
  3. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,150
    flincher, The Gubmit took over 650 million acres already. I'd say thats enough.
     
  4. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,921
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    TTT
     
  5. BAD 303

    BAD 303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,550
    The government owns a third of this countries land and is trying to take over a fourth of it's economy. Anyone see a pattern yet? This democrat party wants all the power. Another revolution is coming. And the bleeding heart liberals are unarmed. Just a perfect storm.
     
  6. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,490
    Flincher, I didn't see any reference to National Parks in the article posted here. The Federal government owns lots of land other than National Parks. What are you talking about?
     
  7. pj 999

    pj 999 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    563
    My personal opinion is the US is using national parks and goverment land for collateral on the money we are borrowing to keep afloat. I hope i am wrong but no one or no country is going to loan us this much money without collateral.
     
  8. tj303

    tj303 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    622
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    The Federal government bought Alaska from Russia with taxpayer dollars. I think all of Alaska and its resources belong to the Federal government for the benefit of all of us. The welfare check Alaskans get from the 'permanent fund dividend' comes from oil we all did and should continue to own.
     
  9. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,490
    If you think "we" own the oil in Alaska how do you propose "we" get it out? There were only 37 states in 1867 when the purchase was ratified so does the oil only belong to people in those states? Was your state one of them?
     
  10. tj303

    tj303 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    622
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    ou.3200 Don't be obtuse, obviously the "we" is the the same "We the people of the United States..." (preamble of the Constitution). "We", i.e. the Federal government which represents the collective we, get it (oil and other natural resources) out by one of two methods; a Federal entity/enterprise or sell leases and charge a royalty to private industry. The "we" is not frozen in time so it does not matter if you were born or your state existed prior to 1867. And yes, my state, New York, did exist in 1867. Further more the principal architect of the purchase of Alaska(Seward's Folly, Seward's Icebox) was Secretary of State William H. Seward, former Governor of New York.

    Speaking of New York it is a beautiful sunny day in central New York and I am going to shoot trap. Enjoy your day and don't worry, Alaskans will continue to receive royalties from the oil my ancestors paid for.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.