Posted on 07/16/2016 6:19:32 PM PDT by usafa92
Edited on 07/16/2016 6:31:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A Montana lawmaker has resigned as a delegate to the Republican National Convention over the GOP's position on the transfer of federal lands to states.
Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke told The (Billings) Gazette that he still plans to give a speech Monday to the convention about national security. But he says he's withdrawing as a delegate because the GOP platform is "more divisive than uniting."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Zinke is all right though he is squishy on some of the hot-button issues.
But these days the lone Republican congressperson has to be.
Montana is, like California first and Colorado now, being overrun by rich, pampered, clueless outsiders who only want to COEXIST by turning the state into the kind of bureaucratic craphole they fled from in the first place.
We’re not a Red State anymore, what with enviros, unions, kumbaya types and Leftist trust-funders. Ryan walks a fine line, pissing me off as often as not, but in his case I can truly say he beats the alternative.
No problem with the concept but most of these western lands never belonged to a state so there's nothing to give back.
Should the federal government gift the lands to the state, and if so how should the taxpayers who have always owned the lands feel about that?
“more divisive than uniting” = not liberal/progressive
It is simple code for “I do not agree with this policy”
Giving public lands back is DOA and most people won’t support. This is stupid inclusion in the platform.
Trump has stated BETTER management, not transfer. Which I agree 100%. I absolutely love the accessible public lands and no No Trespassing signs.
That land shold have reverted to states as soon as they were created. Feel no problem giving it to the states.
Well, he thinks he’s a hell of a lot more clever than he actually is.
And he is a helluva lot more ambitious than he is smart or capable.
Still I think he is probably reading the federal lands issue correctly: if he supports the sale of some lands to the state (as I do) the lyin’ Left will bury him in November.
We’re already knee-deep in the foul horse-—t from the campaign against Gianforte, as you have probably seen or heard.
Montana Democrats are more like their cruel, ruthless, dishonest national ilk every year.
p.s. You are right about Zinke though. He offers stupid rationales to his constituents ‘cause he usually thinks they are too stupid to see through his dodge.
These lands were NEVER state lands. NEver. And no reason to transfer our national heritage to sates or private users. People can hero-worship Bundy’s and all but and transfer is DOA. Will never happen. People should get over it and stop wasting time with such a lame issue. Especially mucking with the party platform on an issue that most Americans will disagree with.
Go Trump. This is happening folks. clinton is in a tail spin to earth with no parachute. People are uniting and they are PISSED!!
I believe Utah has a a lawsuit against the federal government demanding the federal land be turned over to the state.
-—————————————————————————————U I would imagine that Utah would especially want the Escalante staircase back which Clintoon seized from them. It is rich in clean-burning coal.
I do not know what lands are being discussed here, but the guy in question is from Montana of which the vast majority was a part of the Louisiana Purchase. I own such land, my ancestors homesteaded it.
This land NEVER BELONGED TO THE STATES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The Louisiana Purchase lands never belonged to any state in the first place because no states existed on those lands before the federal government bought the land from France.
Such lands were surveyed according to the PLLS system and were opened to homesteading. Territories were organized then subdivided into states that requested entry into the union.
Any lands never homesteaded were retained by the federal government.
This notion of giving lands back to the states is really a very ignorant position. Giving it back to the Indians makes sense, giving it back to the French or Spanish makes sense (a poor idea though), but giving it back to the Feds is just plane dumb. This applies only to lands either bought or seized by the feds before such lands were states.
BTW, I agree with the idea that all lands within a states border should belong to the state, with exception of military bases and a few government offices. Even federal parks and refuges would be better managed by states.
No kidding!!! He's a fool to think the elites in Washington or the out of control regulatory agencies can do a better job of taking care of their state lands than their elected officials. He's lost all credibility with this stunt...
“These lands were NEVER state lands. NEver. And no reason to transfer our national heritage to sates or private users.”
So how do the original 13 states get away with sub 1% Federally owned lands? You’re dealing in sematics, when each state was brought into the Union, the price was giving the Feds substantial lands within the new state’s border. And I disagree with you wholeheartedly. These are only “national heritage lands” in your eyes. BTW, my wife was born in Fallon and grew up in LV. She saw first hand, as a child how the Feds effed with the farmers in the Fallon area.
His beef is (according to a statement at his web site) that there is no restrictions on the state after the sale. The state doesn’t have to keep the land public.
“A few folks think that state ownership is worse than Feds....cuz no telling what they will do”.
How about signing on to a Plan to make 50% of the land designated Core Area Wildlands with little to NO human use?
http://www.agenda21course.com/lesson-3-wildlands-project/
“No problem with the concept but most of these western lands never belonged to a state so there’s nothing to give back.”
HORSECRAP! The lands that the Feds “took” when a state joined the union, were lands that lay within the borders of that state. We are The United STATES!. States are supposed to be superior to the Federal Government! The feds have a whole buraucracy to “manage” all this land and they use their agencies to F-ck with the people who are trying to eke out a living farming and raising livestock on most of it.
Mental illness
The same was true of the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Illinois, etc.) but the land was returned to them nonetheless.
Makes sense, thanks.
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.