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.
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.
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.
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)