Posted on 01/12/2016 6:06:16 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Trump says Americans shouldn't let the government turn the West into a federally-owned frontier. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Forget China, guns or immigration. Donald Trump is taking on a new issue: federal land ownership.
In a new op-ed for the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Republican presidential front-runner rails against the "draconian rule" of the Bureau of Land Management and the Obama administration's "land grab" in the western United States.
"The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada," Trump explains. "In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians."
On Thursday, Trump told the New York Times he would end an ongoing dispute between Oregon ranchers and federal officials, that's culminated with a group of armed protesters staging an ongoing occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, with a "phone call."
"You cannot let people take over federal property," Trump told the Times.
Now, Trump says Americans shouldn't let the government turn the West into a federally-owned frontier.
"Honest, hardworking citizens who seek freedom and economic independence must beg for deference from a federal government that is more intent on power and control than it is in serving the citizens of the nation," Trump writes in his RGJ op-ed.
Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, pushes the conservative argument that because the government owns millions of acres of land, specifically in Nevada, "the cost of land has skyrocketed and the cost of living has become an impediment to growth."
"Where are the city and county to get the land for schools, roads, parks and other public use areas if they have to beg Washington for the land and then pay a premium price for it? How are people who see a future in Nevada to find housing and employment if the federal government is inhibiting economic development?" he writes.
According to Trump, who's second in the Washington Examiner's presidential power rankings, the only way to solve the issues sparked by federal land ownership "is to bring to Washington a president who will rein in the federal government and get Congress to do its job."
"What is needed in Washington is a president who has the will, strength and courage to lead," he writes, adding, "When I am elected president, I will bring the executive branch back inside the Constitution and will work with Congress to put America first."
40 acres and a mule-proplem is over forever.
Dang.
The West was bought by and paid for by the Federal Government. (remember the Louisiana purchase thing..etc.)
Really it was not until the billionaires like Trump started buying up the land in the west and fencing it in was there a problem.
But that big money quickly buys the minds of us hicks out here, so there are the idiots like those in Oregon calling themselves Patriots but actually being nothing more lemmings.
The US bought and owns that land.
I completely understand the legislative process but to most Americans this comes off as more excuses from Washington. "Yeah, but in the end did ya win?" And the answer with Ted unfortunately is always no.
"I introduced an amendment". . . That did what?He introduced an amendment once and then he proudly said he lied about it's intent. Now he's an admitted liar, fraud actually, and we'll never know what his true intentions are.
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I think that the government plan is to acquire more land to agenda 21 the serfs. [quoted]
____________________________________________
I think you’re absolutely correct. It might be interesting to see who ACTUALLY owns that land that the fed.gub is managing. Title search anyone?
Somewhere along the line, I thought I read that the government is only allowed to own 1 square acre of land, and that piece of land is called D.C.
Then, in the 1990’s I read that foreign nations actually own quite a lot of things that shouldn’t be owned such as Independence Hall and ‘federal’ lands..I believe China or Japan were major land holders here in the US.
A good researcher might uncover all kinds of spider webs.
nd then lock them down, as Clinton did with millions of acres.
This is not a bad issue to take a stand on - surprised no one else beat him to it...actually, not surprised.>>>
and sell the land to dem cronies like harry reid.
Neither can Trump
...but the point is the Feds can tell any entity NO.
True.
I think the best *technique* to get rid of the UN would be to encourage both Russia and China to set up their own UN buildings, so that there can be a “rotation” between them at intervals of say, every 25 years.
This would mean that the UN would be out of the US for at least 50 years. And in that time, we could encourage other nations to set up their own UN buildings. Places such as Harare, Zimbabwe; Mogadishu, Somalia; the big slum area of Rio, Brazil; etc.
You figure if we could keep them away for a few hundred years, it would be up to our far-flung descent to decide if they wanted them back.
Interesting theory. Good for a laugh too. But my idea may be simpler. Just pull out of the U.N. and tell them to go build a building somewhere else in the world that will be more accommodating to their One World Order idea, and let the other socialist countries support them, we’re DONE! Without us to feed their insatiable greed, they will collapse, because the countries who have the most say there now are the countries wwho want us to foot the bill for everything. They’re not going tom shell out for all the socalled peace keeping operations and every other gimmick they can come up with to bleed us dry. It will collapse of its own weight.
The U.S. is we the people. That land belongs to the states according to the constitution.
You’ll notice that they never, ever answer that question.
Whereas most Trump supporters are like, “Yes, but he’s saying the right things now, and just by the fact that he’s saying them, he’s done more good than any of his past positions harmed them.”
And the response is usually the closest that FR mods will allow to ‘FU!’
While the direct approach might work, the left will fight it every inch of the way, which is why the indirect approach might be better.
The left, internationalist socialists, wants one-world government, hideously enough, run by some organization like the UN. Yes, they are that stupid. However, if another UN building or two were proposed to them, they might support the idea, thinking that it would *grow* their stupid idea.
However, either Moscow or Beijing would make NYC look like a pleasant, civilized and temperate garden spot. Moscow is frozen half the year, and Beijing is under a poisonous cloud of smog and dust.
In either case, making life for UN delegates far less pleasant. And since right now, most of them benefit from nepotism and cronyism, they are delegates for the money and perks, not for the work. And being relocated to either place would convince many of these parasites to look for a new host to suck from.
So the UN would die from lack of interest.
Isn’t he saying the opposite thing here?
“AL: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President? “
“DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job-I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.”
Full interview at the link
Yes, because Trump just blabs whatever comes to mind.
We have no idea what he will do. None. He flips *daily* now. He also just said he thinks the establishment is a good thing, and Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill. (But there were - count ‘em - eight government shutdowns!) He got the idea from Chris Matthews. It’s a fable. And this is after Sarah Palin called him awesome on taking on the establishment!
Donald Trump is now FOR federal ownership of land. He’d want as much as he could get his hands on. It’s totally within his nature and emotional construct.
the land has been government land since the beginning.
in general, the lands not private were not worth a damn and never granted to individuals.
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.