Posted on 03/06/2016 2:56:33 AM PST by Nextrush
At 0:00 TED CRUZ: Too much land in this country particularly in the West is owned by the federal government. It's not right, it doesn't make sense and we need to transfer that land back to the states or even better back to the people. It should, the people of Idaho know much better what to do with the land here than does the federal government. There's no reason for the federal government to be the largest land owner in this country.
You know, in my home state of Texas, two percent of the state is owned by the federal government. I gotta tell you in Texas we think that's two percent too much. It doesn't make any sense at all.....the Eastern part of the country, that's not the case, the federal government doesn't own the majority of the land in the East, but the West when states joined the Union, they found themselves in a situation where the federal government took control of far too much land and I think we need to give it back to the states.......
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
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.
Would it have done any good when Mr. Pen and Phone just whips up another million or more acres of National Monument by executive order, and the EPA gives private land in Wyoming away to the Wind River Indians?
Between the GOPee and The Harry Reid Democrats, uch a Bill would never get out of Committee.
Sorry, that is total BEE ESS. It is a leftist talking point that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
never under-estimate the state of Illinois
Something like only 1% of the land in Alaska is privately owned.
Wish people would stop with the name calling, btw. It does nothing to encourage people to support another’s candidate or to foster discussion here.
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.
Hasnt HILLAry already used some of the federal lands as collateral for our loans with China?
Good comments by Sentinel !
I wonder what Henry George would say.
First release the lands back under 100% state control including mineral, water, wildlife rights and management. Areas that are interstate will have to remain federal but that can be sliced up to make the interstate areas a narrow strip of land.
If the states want to sell the land for private or commercial development it’s on the state govt (closer to the people’s control).
Article I, Section 8: "...and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;" That restriction if for land purchased from the state. Where does the Constitution restrict land owned by the government before the state was created?
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.
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.