Comedy | February 07, 2012 | 78 comments

Ron Paul Calls For The Elimination Of Public Lands

source: http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/07/419895/ron-paul-calls-for-the-elimination-of-publi...

coolplanet
During a stop in Elko, Nevada last week, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he opposes the federal ownership of any public lands. After stating that he wanted to disband the U.S. Department of Interior (which manages 500 million acres of surface land including nearly 400 national parks), he responded to a question about a travel management plan in a national forest by stating:

Paul: I want as much federal land to be turned over to the state as possible—the regulatory approach to tell people how to do and what to say. So I was essentially other than the other members of Congress from this state — I very early on opposed the dumping of nuclear waste in Nevada, so I want the state to make a decision—

Questioner: This plan pertains to using ATVs and things like that on federal land.

Paul: Well, I’d be opposed to that. I don’t want the federal government dictating to Nevada, period. I’d rather see the land owned and controlled by the states.

This is not the first time Paul has called for public lands to be turned over to states or private entities. In October he told the Western Republican Leadership Conference that public lands “should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.”

The existence of public lands managed by the federal government is actually provided for in the Property Clause of the Constitution which states: “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Our federal public lands are important assets for many reasons. Interior Department lands alone provided $363 billion in economic activity in 2010, some of which goes to states and counties. Indeed federal lands in Nevada pumped $1 billion into the state’s economy in 2010.

Additionally, public lands are managed for the public good. They are owned by every single American, and are places we all can go to picnic, hike, fish, and get outside with our families. They also provide important benefits like clean air and clean water.

Perhaps most importantly, public lands are protected so they can be enjoyed for future generations. Just imagine what the Grand Canyon would have been like if mining interests and the Arizona Territory had had their way in 1903 and mined it rather than preserved it.


By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Comedy,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Ron Paul,  National Parks,  BLM,  Public Lands
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

78 comments // Ron Paul Calls For The Elimination Of Public Lands // Video

  • labman57
  • SAINTJULE
  • BillStephens
    • 0
      BillStephens  

    • Imagine Independence Hall being sold off to the highest bidder. Imagine McMansions replacing the hallowed grounds of both Valley Forge, where Revolutionary War soldiers froze their tails off in the harshest winter at that time, and Gettysburg, where thousands of Americans died in one of the worst battles in American history. That's just in Pennsylvania alone!

    • 4 months ago
  • Arizona_Huey
    • +2
      Arizona_Huey  

    • After seeing how ridiculously idiotic state legislation can be - living in Arizona, I get a toxic dose of it daily - I am glad the Feds are in charge of it. God knows who GED Jan Brewer would try to turn the Grand Canyon into a f#$%ing landfill.

    • 4 months ago
  • gypsysailor
    • +4
      gypsysailor  

    • See Ron, this is where you keep screwing up. It's public land owned by all of us. It is not state land. What you are trying to do in your libertarian way is make us a country not of one country with 50 states, but 50 countries with one state.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
  • gypsysailor
  • northernexpat
    • +3
      northernexpat  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      I knew I like him. He was a wise man who the military in the end tried to destroy because he warned us of about the "military industrial complex". It's unfortunate we did listen to him. Too bad hindsight is better than foresight.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • Plue
    • +3
      Plue  

    • What an ass. The greater part of this Countries beauty is preserved in those lands. Ron Paul is most anti-American.

    • 4 months ago
  • Milieu
    • +3
      Milieu  
    • Image

    • Quote from the King of States' Rights and Hero of Libertarians and Ron/Rand Paul,especially.

      There's your States' Rights ---------RayGun and Thurmond

      "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.[10]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • gypsysailor
  • coolplanet
  • JoanneJ
  • JoanneJ
  • northernexpat
    • +6
      northernexpat  

    • This is an important issue that Ron Paul supporters do not understand. If you dismantle the federal government and transfer everything to each of the States you will lose the meaning of the United States. You might as well become separate countries with your own laws of the land.

      Another important issue is in regards to the environment. Selling public land to private companies would be a disaster. It would be mining companies that would be most interested in buying public lands. The Bush Administration tried to allow mining on public land. It took people like Robert Redford to raise the flag on this. If mining were allowed in the Grand Canyon, for example, it would pollute the Colorado River which is a major source of drinking water. Haven't mankind already done enough to pollute the environment?

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Plue
  • Saladin
    • +4
      Saladin  

    • Ron Paul ought to direct all policy questions to the existence of the Federal Government in 1855 and just say "pretty much that."

    • 4 months ago
  • warman1138
  • bailey78
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • bailey78
  • gypsysailor
  • Plue
  • OlBlue
    • +9
      OlBlue  

    • Under the "Paul Plan" Jan Brewer would turn the Grand Canyon into a landfill and:
      The Lake Mead National Recreation Area into a sewage lagoon.
      The Saguaro National Park, a rifle range with the cactus as prime targets.
      The Glen Canyon National Recreation area into a nuclear waste site.
      Hate to think of what Rubio would do with The Everglades National Park.

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • OlBlue
  • Leen61
  • Ambill94
  • shakamaster2012
  • Ambill94
  • sugarmountian
    • +8
      sugarmountian  

    • It's a good thing this guy will never be Potus. Now that the rich have all the money it would be easy for them to buy up the choice land and keep the "riffraff" out. The kochs could buy Yellowstone and put "Keep out" signs at the gates. Not cool.
      This guy is a train-wreck waiting to happen.

    • 4 months ago
  • unimatrix0
  • Ambill94
  • unimatrix0
  • Ambill94
  • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP
  • coolplanet
  • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP
    • -4
      TaGgInUrBlOcKuP [removed]  

    • "During a stop in Elko, Nevada last week, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he opposes the federal ownership of any public lands". He opposes FEDERAL OWNERSHIP. They would still be public land if the states wanted it to be.

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
    • +6
      HarukoHaruhara  
    • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP:

      The problem is states don't have the money to take over national parks or forest service lands. California is talking about closing or selling off some its state parks.

      And would you really trust a kooky state like Arizona to operate Grand Canyon National Park?

    • 4 months ago
  • unimatrix0
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +7
      Varex_Sythe  

    • Just don't spread the rumor that Yellowstone National Park is the worlds biggest reserve of oil, gold, AND baby seal furs. If that happens then no amount of government regulations could keep oil companies and the like from plundering that national treasure.

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
    • +5
      HarukoHaruhara  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      I'd be more concerned about Disney, Marriotts and others being allowed to build giant hotels and casinos and amusement parks in the national parks. This is already kind of an issue in places like Yellowstone and Yosemite.

    • 4 months ago
  • Anonmaly
  • coolplanet
  • shaunandelly
  • Vierotchka
  • Novek
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • coolplanet
    • +7
      coolplanet  
    • Novek:

      The National Park Service wasn't needed in 1776 when there were only 13 states and less than a million people in the United States.
      It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who saw the great need for national public land at the turn of the 20th Century.

    • 4 months ago
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • coolplanet
  • remanns
  • joeredford
  • rerushg
    • +6
      rerushg  

    • Works for me. Lets start a fund drive to buy Area 51. Just think... hanging out by the campfire with the aliens! Couple of guitars.... some smoke....

      Come on Ron. You're auditioning to run the government, not reinvent it.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  

    • Paul: public lands “should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.”

      I wish I could afford to buy a big chunk of land in Yosemite Valley!

    • 4 months ago
  • Wyley_Wombat
    • +5
      Wyley_Wombat  
    • coolplanet:

      And by "best parts" he means anything that has coal, gas, or oil underneath. I can see it now: The Yellowstone Geothermal Farm. That is until they drill too deep and hit the hot spot, then phooom !

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • maasanova
    • -4
      maasanova  

    • If you've ever lived in a place like Hawaii like I have and have seen how much land the Federal Government owns and that citizens who were once free to hunt, fish and live on that land but no longer cannot, you would probably agree with this.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +7
      coolplanet  
    • maasanova:

      I lived on the Big Island of Hawaii for two years (my family still lives there) and all I saw was sprawling golf courses, resorts and papaya farms owned by private companies (mostly from Japan).

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +2
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • maasanova:

      We need to loosen the regulations for private citizens and their use of public lands, but the idea of disbanding DotI to do so is just insane, With out our national park services how much splendor would we have lost? We have rangers meant to help control poaching and over hunting. let's put them and more to work and open parks to those who have bought a specialized permit to hunt them. Keep the permit cheap, but enough to cover the costs of the logistics for the permits and a few more park rangers. I would hate to think of the wonderous things I would not have seen in my travels around America if the Rothschild had been allowed to gobble em all up.

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • joeredford
  • maasanova
  • maasanova
  • coolplanet
  • maasanova
    • +4
      maasanova  
    • Image
    • coolplanet:

      Well that's because most of the bases are on Oahu, where I lived, but you are correct about the live ordinances in Hilo, Big Island.

      Malu Aina, a military watchdog group from Hawaii reported:

      http://www.rense.com/general56/homesles.htm

      "Live military ordnance in large quantities has been found off Hapuna Beach and in Hilo Bay.

      Since the end of World War II, Hawaii has been the center of the United States military's Pacific Command (PACOM), from which all U.S. forces in the region are directed. Hawaii serves as an outpost for Pacific expansionism, along with Guam, the Marshall Islands, Samoa and the Philippines. PACOM is the center of U.S. military activities over more than half the earth, from the west coast of the U.S. to Africa's east coast, from the Arctic to Antarctica, covering 70 percent of the world's oceans.

      The military controls more of Hawaii than any other state, including some 25 percent of Oahu, valuable "submerged lands" (i.e. estuaries and bays), and until relatively recently, the island of Kaho'olawe. The island was the only National Historic Site also used as a bombing range. Finally, after years of litigation and negotiations, Congress placed a moratorium on the bombing, but after $400 million already spent in cleanup money, much remains to be completed.

      The U.S. military controls 200,000 acres of Hawaii, with over 100 military installations and at least 150,000 personnel. Among the largest sites is the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), a 108,793-acre bombing range between the sacred mountains of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa in the center of the big island, Hawaii. At least seven million rounds of ammunition are fired annually at that base alone. The military proposes to expand the base by 23,000-acres under the "Military Transformation Proposal" and plans to bring in Stryker brigades to the area. The military is hoping for up to 79,000 additional acres in new land acquisition. Pohakuloa has the "highest concentration of endangered species of any Army installation in the world," according to its former commander Lt. Col. Dennis Owen, with over 250 ancient Hawaiian archeological sites. Those species and archeological sites are pretty much "toast" under the expansion plans.

      Hawaiian military bucks and the homeless

      There are some benefits to being a senior senator like Daniel Inouye. The $l.5 billion dollar pork-barrel proposal to expand Hawaii's military bases would include more than 400 Stryker vehicles (eight-wheeled, 19-ton, armored infantry carriers), new C-l7 transport planes and additional arsenal expansions.

      Adding more military personnel and bases is always a good way to boost a state's economy. After all, a recent Hawaii Advertiser article featured Pearl Harbor businessmen lamenting the number of troops "sent out" to Iraq, and the downswing in business at the barbershops and elsewhere. The message: "New troops needed to fill up those businesses!"

      Inouye, who is the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee has been a strong advocate for more military in Hawaii. Yet, in his vice chairmanship of the Indian Affairs Committee, he has been a stronger advocate for diminishing Native Hawaiian sovereignty, rights and land title. New proposals (the so-called Akaka Bill) would strip Hawaiians of long-term access to land, and follow the suit of the infamous Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, barring future recourse for justice.

      In the meantime, the 2 million acres of land originally earmarked for Native Hawaiians (under Hawaii's statehood act) are being transferred to private interests and to the military. Some 22,000 Native Hawaiians remain on waiting lists for their homestead awards, and an estimated 30,000 have died while on the list awaiting their homesteads. The Hawaiian lands end up with the military or developers. "We can barely pay house rent, and they build apartments," said one Hawaiian from the Wai'anae coast. "With inflation now, its hard to buy tomatoes, carrots ... You cannot eat 'em, those buildings."

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • maasanova
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos