Public Lands Eligible for Sale
|
Frank Stein wrote: How much chipping do you need to do for it to be legally considered mining? |
|
Admins Make Sticky, please! |
|
Here’s a great, short substack that goes below the surface of the amendment. It has the updated map that shows it is now actually 290+ million acres. Wes Siler’s Explanation Call all the R senators, and D’s for that matter of the Western states. If you don’t live there either: A) lie and give them a zip code within their state making yourself one of their constituents, or B) let them know that you visit their state and spend money in their state because of the recreational opportunities available Mike Crapo, ID 202-224-6142 Jim Risch, ID 202-224-2752 Mike Lee, UT 202-224-5444 John Curtis, UT 202-224-5251 John Barrasso, WY 202-224-6441 Cynthia Lummis, WY 202-224-3424 |
|
One of the ( multiple) ridiculous things concerning this piece of prospective legislation, is that one of the main justifications Sen. Lee and other supporters are claiming is that it will be used to provide land for "affordable housing"!!! Well, looking at those maps, virtually none of the sections of land at risk are anywhere near urban areas or any place else that would be appropriate for such housing. Clearly this is just a fake 'selling point' to make this look like an effort to assist those in need, instead of its true purpose to cater to the 'very needy' exploitative industries. |
|
Alan Rubin wrote: Affordable… for the Jeff bezoses … |
|
I have called my Utah legislatures yesterday, and today, I will spend my lunch calling Mike Lee and Curtis. They will be on speed dial at this point to make calling them easier. |
|
PWZ wrote: In today's Republican narrative, American's public lands tradition, the inheritance of GOP President T. Roosevelt expresses the values of communist, radical-left lunatics |
|
Bruno Schull wrote: As long as it owns the libs, that’s all that matters to them. If you’re conservative you shouldn’t even be allowed in national parks and public lands, your party has been against public lands since before public lands existed. 70% of conservative congressmen at the time voted against the creation of Yellowstone national park in 1872, and with a few minor exceptions, conservatives have been against every public land measure since. Imagine if I spend a century and a half voting against funding the fire department but meanwhile I call the fire department for help? |
|
Jiggs Casey wrote: As I wrote on the other thread about this ( Red Alert), there is cause for some optimism that this proposed piece of legislation might be defeated--and, if so, largely due to the opposition of some conservative, but somewhat outdoor recreational use-friendly, Senators. We have to keep up the pressure though. |
|
Jiggs Casey wrote: Ok, you made me look. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, Republican Presidents have created a good number of National Monuments, but not much since Teddy Roosevelt. In recent years, Obama and Clinton top the list. |
|
apogee wrote: Roosevelt was a Republican when the racist kkk Southerners were democrats, party alignment switched since then, which is why I use the word conservative. Roosevelt was a progressive, not a conservative, and you’re correct, outside of him, the Republican Party has done almost squat for public lands. |
|
The Federal Reserve lends money to the Federal Government, gets paid back with interest. That interest is currently the #2 expenditure of the Federal Government. The beneficiaries of this land sell-off (Blackrock) have also been accumulating the capital to make these purchases directly from this lending/debt system you people who just worship the Federal State has been extorting from all of us. End. The. Fed. Both Reserve and State Recognize that it's the Federal State and its unconstitutional control of land, plus its debt slavery currency system that is exactly why this problem exists. If were only your state, at least the people responsible for the land live among you and are much more easily replaced |
|
Jiggs Casey wrote: Read that again, slowly. |
|
Eric Moss wrote: If you vote against something why should you be allowed in that something? If I vote against funding the fire department, should I be allowed to call them? If not for liberals and progressives, there wouldn’t even be public lands, and you’d need an Ikon pass to visit Jellystone Natural Park. I hadn’t felt this way before Trump, but if they’re gonna vote to destroy our entire democratic republic, public lands included, then yea this is how I feel. |