Posted on 06/21/2024 7:19:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Your government was fixing to auction off your real estate—including national parks, farmlands, precious ecosystems, and natural resources—to the highest bidder.
According to a recent report by Elizabeth Nickson, the highly-credentialed journalist behind the Welcome to Absurdistan blog, there was a new federal rule set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this past October is set to be implemented in November of this year—this rule would have seen public federal lands, including national parks and wildlife refuges, traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Here are the details, from Nickson:
If not stopped, on November 17th, the U.S. government will pass a rule that allows for America’s protected lands, including parks and wildlife refuges, to be listed on the N.Y. Stock Exchange. Natural Asset Companies (NACs) will be owned, managed, and traded by companies like BlackRock, Vanguard, and even China.
…
On October 4th, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a proposed rule to create Natural Asset Companies (NACs). A twenty-one day comment period was allowed, which is half the minimum number of days generally required. NACs will allow BlackRock, Bill Gates, and possibly even China to hold the ecosystem rights to the land, water, air, and natural processes of the properties enrolled in NACs. Each NAC will hold ‘management authority’ over the land. When we are issued carbon allowances, owners of said lands will be able to claim tax deductions and will be able to sell carbon allowances to businesses, families and townships. In the simplest of terms, that’s where the money will be made. WE peons will be renting air from the richest people on earth.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
So what does this all mean? Well, for one, it means that management agencies, like the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management would no longer be the custodians and decision-makers but the NAC, and whichever stockholder has the most control. (Bill Gates’s farmland-buying scheme just got a whole lot more macroscopic.)
The only lands the Feds are allowed to own according to the Constitution are for military bases, light houses and roads leading to them. The states should demand control over them.
This is part of the WEF and Blackrock’s plan to tokenize everything. This is part of the “you will own nothing and be happy” plan.
Harry Browne Libertarian candidate for POTUS. He said give the land to the states. They wouldn’t have to worry about leftists in DC deciding what to do with the oil in red states.
States need to up their claims if the Feds try to liquidate.
Currently, the taxes on Fed land are minimal. They have PILOT. (Payment In Liu of Taxes)
As a CPA, I used to do the annual audit of a school district that the county land was over 50% owned by the state and federal governments. It was hard for them to get revenue to operate.
With all the experience this administration in its third term has learned in Ukraine, they were going to sell out American before Trump cane to office.
Everything is for sale.
How else does anyone think we will get the federal debt lowered significantly???
I would exclude national parks, military installations and actual federally operated facilities, but large, massive, swaths of federal lands west of the Mississippi ought to be sold - to Americans only - and all the proceeds use to pay down the debt.
Harry Browne in fact always said to sell the land.
Ii remember hearing him make the case to sell it.
This is an old Libertarian idea.
“ Q: What are some of the assets a Browne Administration would sell off?
A: The federal government owns 25% of all the land in the US (and only one seventh of that are the national parks). The government owns power companies, pipelines, unused military bases, commodity reserves, and much, much more. None of them serves any constitutional function.”
Harry Browne on Environment
2000 Libertarian Nominee for President
https://ontheissues.org/2016/Harry_Browne_Environment.htm
Damn, I let that business method patent lapse, but that was almost 25 years ago anyway.
In the right hands, this could be a good thing, as the "owners" would have reason to enhance the natural "value" by actual management. With the way things are going, I have my doubts.
The Constitution list "forts, dock yards, arsenals, magazines, and other needful buildings." National Parks are a disaster of mismanagement.
Hmm...it seems you aren’t saving any more carbon than you otherwise would.
What happens if there’s a forest fire in a National Park?
Do the carbon credits get cancelled? (I think the topic has come up before but I don’t remember the answer)
*Harry Browne in fact always said to sell the land.*
It’s just not an issue that stares us in the face but the western states feel the brunt.
That national parks have bad mananagent is too me a matter of the quality of executive manaegment and not whether or not they are a good thing to have in general.
We differ, but then, I made one of my own.
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.