By The Right Scoop


Michelle Malkin says that along with this omnibus spending bill is a 300 page omnibus public lands bill that amounts to a massive land grab of hundres of thousands of acres. She says that this land would be off limits to economic activity and to the border patrol, which she says represents a major threat to national security:

READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE!

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

    The amount of unused federal land if sold to developers for use in farming, homes, or more likely Mining or other Industrial/Energy (think private Wind and Solar Farms) uses, not even including the major national parks, could Make SocSec Solvent and really paydown or eliminate the debt, since the vast majority of land west of the Mississippi and about 25% east of it is owned by the feds now.

    That is a Biggest problems. Sell it off

    • Paulchri

      I don’t believe that this is a move to sell land to Americans. Most likely a move to sell off actual land to the central banks who are funding governnent. Just like Greece.

      • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

        This is NOT a land sell of, This is a land Seizure. The Federal Government owns massive tracs of land that they make OFF LIMITS to all development, mining or any other activity, the only thing the allow on SOME, not all, of these federal lands are Camping and other Leisure activities.

        This has nothing to do with the Central Banks or Selling anything, They create these “Wildlife preservers” or other federally protected land areas to prohibit the state form developing those lands, Normally it is to prevent Mining or Oil Drilling, but it is also done for other reasons

        • Paulchri

          Except the fact that these lands might fall into the same control as many national monuments that are now controlled by the UN. It will all come down to who “owns” what as we become so indebted to the central banks. When the dollar, and subsequent economy, collapses, they will establish a new world currency controlled by the IMF. The IMF is just the financial wing of the world government, and the UN will end up owning much if not all of the US eventually. They don’t do these things out in the open and on main stream news. When Ron Paul says he is concerned about our sovereignty, there is a reason for it. They have to tie up the land, before they give it, or sell it away.

          • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

            Conspiracy Much? The UN does not control any National Monuments, There are a few treaty’s at the UN that they would like to have passed and signed here that would give them control, but there is ZERO chance of the Senate, ANY SENATE from passing them. This the UN has ZERO change, aside from military invasion, to gain control of our national monuments, while the USA is still the USA.

            As far as the IMF and World Currency, that has been trying to happen for over 30 years now, that is not knew. I could happen, but an asteroid could hit the earth and kill everyone as well

            • Paulchri

              68% of our national monuments are listed as World Heritage Sites, which is controlled by the UN. Although we applied for this status and it doesn’t give them ownership, it does give them regulatory control. I don’t believe that the Senate will ever vote to give away, or sell, land in the US. It will be done by a Globalist president after martial law is in effect. The president is a dictator at that point. These politicians know that we are going down. They know the end result, and are planning for it. The banks don’t get people elected who won’t do their bidding.

              Naturally, we would never give up control of our currency to the IMF in perceived “good times”. It will only happen after it all collapses. The Federal Reserve will be impotent and irrelevant when the federal reserve note dies. We don’t even know if we have “any” gold to back a new currency. Congress won’t be able to take back control of currency when we are in martial law. The bill of rights and elections are suspended, and the Pres is a dictator. What do you think would be happening in this country if the currency was devalued to ten cents on the dollar in a relatively short period of time? Economic collapse and chaotic disorder would ensue. They have been waiting for this to happen for decades. Everyone in the world seems to know that the Fed Res note is going down, except mainstream America.

              I may sound like a conspiracy nut, but is it a conspiracy theory if it is true? I would rather be an alarmist, than a denier.

              • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

                Some has been spending too much time on AboveTopSecret or Alternet…

                If what you say happens it will be after we lost either a civil war or WWIII, meaning their status of “World Heritage Sites” is meaningless anyway

              • Anonymous

                68% of our national monuments are listed as World Heritage sites?

                The World Heritage List has only 911 sites on it, and that’s world wide. Only about 20 of them are in the USA. Are you saying we have only about 30 national monuments?

                Funny…. I thought we had more than that….

  • Stephen

    Someone help me out here please. As I understand it, land can only be siezed by the government under “eminent domain” (greater interest of the general public) or by condemnation. Even in such cases, the government must pay the owner(s) fair market value for said property, no?.

    Am I wrong? If not, how does Congross (intentional) propose to pay for this?

    • Paulchri

      How did they end up with what they have now? Greece is selling off land, why not us?

      • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

        See Above on the Greece Angle

        How they ended up with it, most of it was NEVER reliquished as it should have been, Remember all most all of the states except the first 13 were Federal Territories, that later formed in to states, Some time after the LA Purchase the Federal government started holding on to large tracts of land even after the states that encompassed the lands. There have been and are still many lawsuits against the feds because they did not release the lands as agreed when the states were formed.

        Now they are using, in most cases, the Endangered Species act and other EPA acts to either retain or regain control of these lands.

        • Paulchri

          I live in Oregon where Bill Clinton used executive orders to create national monuments out of millions of acres. My point was simply that they do what they want, because the states don’t fight back. As long as this is the case, it will continue. No matter how they acquired it, I don’t see it as constitutional. From what I have heard, the federal government never should have taken ownership or control of any of the state’s lands, because it is not in their power to do so. Obviously, they have caused everyone to think that they can, and they do. When it comes to the BLM, they act like God in my area. They own massive amounts of land, an bully people who have property around it. The state just bows down to them. I get sick and tired of it. These lands are supposed to be here to serve the needs of the people within this state. I was displaced from the timber industry back in 91, due to Clinton and Gore’s crap. I watched the corruption take place. They claimed the spotted owl was endangered before it was studied. They then went out and found out that the spotted owl is doing quite well, and lives in all kinds of habitats that they claim they don’t. Then they lied about the research that was done after the fact.

          These people belong in prison. They won’t stop until they shut this country down, and we are completely owned by the central banks and the UN.

          • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

            unfortunately most of the land Oregon never belong to Utah or the People of Utah, All of it was owned by the Federal Government From the Beginning, Now in the 1850’s when Utah became a state, the Feds agreed to sell off most of that land, however they did not. In the 90’s Oregon won a massive lawsuit against the fed to gain control over 5,000+ acres of land.

            All Clinton did, as Obama has done as well, is change the designation of the land, he did not seize the land. They Revoked the Lease to the Natural Resources of the land, which as the land owner they had the right to do, not that I agree with it. As far as “never take ownership” of it, in some cased the we as a nation (federal government) BOUGHT the land from other nations, in other cases we (the federal government) fought other nations for it, so we as a nation (the other states) (the federal government) supplied the capital or men to secure those lands, so we owned them.

          • Anonymous

            You’re saying the Federal government “took Oregon’s land?” How, exactly, did Oregon acquire it? Seems to me, this land would have been Federal Territory of some kind before Oregon existed as a state, right? So when Oregon was admitted to the Union… the status changed from a Federal Territory to a State. That would give them jurisdiction over that land… How does it give them ownership? What did they use to buy it with?

            • KeninMontana

              So then, just what did the Federal Government use to buy the land?

              • Rich

                Shhhh, he doesn’t like to think that far down the road that his own arguements take him on.

                • Anonymous

                  I’m quite comfortable going down this road. Are you?

              • Anonymous

                The answer to that depends on specifically what land we’re talking about, doesn’t it? If it’s in Colorado or Utah, it was ceded to the United States by Mexico in 1848, in exchange for $15 million plus the assumption of a few million more in debts to American citizens. They would have used taxpayer money, from taxpayers in the rest of the country, as they weren’t yet collecting any taxes from people in the acquired lands. Texas, I think, has a different history. Originally part of Spanish Louisiana, the King of Spain did grant it to some Americans, but with the stipulation that it remain part of Spain. They decided to become part of America instead.

                • KeninMontana

                  Actually Texas was a part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico), as the Spanish ceded Louisiana to the French who then sold it to the United States. Be that as it may the funds come from one source,taxpayers. When a state is formed all lands within its set boundaries are in essence ceded to that state’s government and those citizens residing therein,exceptions to this would be Indian and Military Reservations (the latter are actually leased by the federal Govt.) and of course National Parks. This was the case until T.Roosevelt who some maintain committed the largest serial abuse of the National Parks and Monuments act using it to seize land and usurp the state’s control of their own lands. As well as being the greatest overreach of Executive Power in our Nation’s history,well at least until his cousin reached the oval office.

                • Anonymous

                  Nope. You’re wrong, plain and simple. Most of Texas was not part of the Louisiana Purchase, the boundary was set at the Sabine River. Stephen Austin was granted tracts of land by the Spanish King to encourage immigration from America and other nations and reduce the raids by Apache and Comanche tribes, but it was supposed to remain part of Spain.

            • Paulchri

              He who controls something, owns it. You can call it “Oregon”, but if Oregon doesn’t control it, it isn’t Oregon. Except for a name designation on a map, Oregon has nothing to do with massive tracks of land within the state. If the feds have their way, Oregon won’t have much to say about water, or air either. What is the point in having a state? Apparently to act as another regulatory branch of the federal government, and to give people the perception that we have local control.

              • Anonymous

                He who controls something doesn’t always own it, no. Ownership is a legal term. A trustee controls property, but doesn’t own it. The CEO of a public corporation controls its assets, but they’re owned by the shareholders. There are such things as stewards, conservators, guardians, even managers and pastors. To say nothing of bus drivers, sea captains and pilots, who certainly control their vehicles but don’t own them at all.

        • Rich

          Except when you understand that this system was supposed to be a federalist system, this shouldn’t even be a problem. States should ultimately hold most of the power and therefore shouldn’t have to find over land rights with the federal government. If 13 states (colonies) formed the federal government as it is today, then that means that the federal government exists only because those 13 colonies allowed it to. Now, we’ve expanded to 50 states and I guess we could treat the other 37 states differently, but that seems counter-productive. Therefore, the only plausible thing is to continue to say that the only reason the federal government exists is because these 50 states allow it to. Which begs the question as to why it is that we so easily accept the notion that federal government is somehow allowed to own w/e effin land that they deem they should own.

          The only reason they were able to buy land, is because the states provided them the money to do so (early on anyway). Eminant Domain was never intended to be used for nonsense like this. Just like the commerce clause and the majority of the rest of the consitution, the federal government has entirely overstepped its boundaries in the area of emminant domain.

        • Rich

          Except when you understand that this system was supposed to be a federalist system, this shouldn’t even be a problem. States should ultimately hold most of the power and therefore shouldn’t have to find over land rights with the federal government. If 13 states (colonies) formed the federal government as it is today, then that means that the federal government exists only because those 13 colonies allowed it to. Now, we’ve expanded to 50 states and I guess we could treat the other 37 states differently, but that seems counter-productive. Therefore, the only plausible thing is to continue to say that the only reason the federal government exists is because these 50 states allow it to. Which begs the question as to why it is that we so easily accept the notion that federal government is somehow allowed to own w/e effin land that they deem they should own.

          The only reason they were able to buy land, is because the states provided them the money to do so (early on anyway). Eminant Domain was never intended to be used for nonsense like this. Just like the commerce clause and the majority of the rest of the consitution, the federal government has entirely overstepped its boundaries in the area of emminant domain.

          • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

            Like I said they Feds should have sold it off, But at the same time, as we (the other states) BOUGHT more land from other nations (and most of the land west of the Mississippi was purchased) we (the other states) should lose the money we invested in it, the new state that wishes to join the union should have to pay us for the “thier” land or it still belongs to the other states (per ownership of the federal government) it should NOT just be given for free

            IMO

    • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

      That is correct, Most of this land is unincorporated land owned by the State, Remember alot of the Western States have land that is not usable for anything other than mining or now alt energy, Or land that has NEVER been owned by anyone other than the Feds from the Territory Days remember some states did not become states until the Early to Mid 1900’s most people forget how new some of those western states really are.

      But they do have to pay the state or the private owner for them, thus the price tag, but if it is undeveloped, they only have to pay for the land, not any minerals or other items that may be on the land. So it is CHEAP.

      Also they use the Powers or the Endangered Species act to fulfill the required “Public Good” of eminent Domain.

      • KB

        It is part of a plan as outlined by the UN. See p11 on The Wildlands Project. This is a plan many years in the making.
        http://www.middletownca.com/UNDERSTANDING-AGENDA21.pdf

        • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

          That the UN would like to control the USA is of no news, They have been trying to get the US to sign on to Treaties that give them all kinds of control over us. Kayoto, Waterways, Intellectual Property (which they partially got with WTO and DMCA), and thousands of others.

          I have been advocating on us leaving and banning the UN for many many years. But I dont think, in my life time, the US will sign any of these. If it occurs it will be at the barrel of a gun, not a voluntary act.

          • Paulchri

            What do you think Obama would do if he was a dictator? Martial law gives him that. We will see economic collapse, and chaos in the streets before too many more months or years.

    • Anonymous

      How does Congress propose to pay for it? How much would that be, do you think? What did the States pay for it? They must have bought it from the Federal Government, right, since they’re not allowed to enter into treaties with foreign nations or Indian tribes…

      Let me guess…. in calling this a “Federal land grab,” nobody considered this stuff?

      • Rich

        Explain to me why the states have to buy land from the federal govt, considering the colonies, which became states, formed the federal govt. and not the other way around. They were colonies before their was a federal govt. Explain to me how then the federal govt. controlled the land in the first place? I mean, did the federal govt. pay them money for their land which then gave them control which would then validate your arguement? You somehow have come to the conclusion that the states exist only because the federal government allows them to (then giving them the property rights), which is totally opposite of how this thing was formed. The federal government only exists because the states (then colonies) allowed it too.

        Furthermore, if you would like to still go down this rode, explain to me how the federal government came to purchase the land in the first place. Did they even buy it? If they did, with what money? If they had money, where did that money come from? I’m sure you see where this ends up.

        People have lost sight of wtf federalism was intended to be. Do you realize the states and not the federal government were intended to be the backbone of this country? And yet you so easily concede that the government somehow has a right to take w/e land they so please.

        • Anonymous

          It’s a matter of who “owns” the land. This story accuses the Federal government of a land grab from the states. That implies that those states “own” that land. I’m saying that they really don’t “own” it, and since that land was acquired by the Federal government before that state came into existence, the Federal claim of ownership is superior to the State’s. This principle would not apply to the original colonies, or to territories which were sovereign territories before 1787.

          An analogy would be my kids’ rooms in my house. It may be said that I “gave” them their rooms, but I really didn’t transfer ownership. They have some autonomy in their room, and may, within limits, control most of what goes on in there, and they have a right to privacy… but they did not buy or rent that space, and if I want to change the arrangement of furnishings in a way that reduces what they can do with what’s left or partition off part of it to make them share it with a sibling, or even install a monitoring device… I can do that. They can protest and call it a land grab if they want to. But in fact, it wouldn’t be one, because it was always mine.

          IN this case, the land used to be a Federal Territory. It was granted the status of “Statehood,” much the same way a foster child living in a room in a home could be adopted. That doesn’t change who owns the room, or whose decision is final as to its use.

    • Rich

      They make the rules so they can decide what is and is not “the greatest interest of the public.” Just declare some species that happens to exist on that land endangered, and then suddenly that can now be cause for taking the land in the laughable name of the “public” interest.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM170_end10b50_xml.pdf

    This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus Public Land
    5 Management Act of 2010

    I don’t see a bill number, but it’s the only one i found with 327 pages.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      She said on her site she uploaded it. you should be able to find it there.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks, I’ll check there.

  • http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient

    Anyone Interested in know just how much land the Feds own in their state can check out this great map that show the % of each state that the federal government owns. Keep in mind this is from 2004, and the federal government buys or seizes new land every year.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

  • Anonymous

    Love the Santa hat!

    I couldn’t watch all of this, just pisses me off.

  • zytekfan

    More land for them to take and designate a wilderness so nobody can touch it…

    And coincidentally (not really) the land always contains enormous amounts of resources, from oil and natural gas, to timber, to minerals. It’s a joke. They say they’re taking it to protect for future generations to have, but they’re just denying everybody use of it.

    It’s time states start taking back land. It’s within their borders, so they’re within reason allowed to own and take care of it. The only land that should be designated as federal is national borderlands (which should be protected from smugglers and illegals), embassies, and D.C.

    • Anonymous

      If we had done that, there would likely be no natural resources left in this country. If we do that, we may still reach that point.

      I think the Rapa Nui had that philosophy of non-conservation. You know what happened to them, right?

  • Jimbo

    MM is the best investigative reporter out there.

  • Erice1986

    Check out the Brigitte Gabriel Interview @ http://www.ourlaststand.com

  • Anonymous

    Hypothetical: when our govt finally caves in, who will be left to defend the land once our govt gives it to China to pay back what we owe them?

    • Paulchri

      I believe the Fed Res is the biggest holder of our debt now. Then China, Japan, and England. We will be giving up the most to the same banking system that we are bailing out right now. They create the money from nothing, loan it to us, charge us interest while our tax money goes straight to them, until we can’t pay them with tax revenue any more. Then they will say “what you got to pay your debt”? (In that gangster tone of voice)

      • Anonymous

        Actually, about 80% of our debt is held by domestic entities… the Federal Reserve, the States, various American corporate pension funds, banks, etc. About 20% is held by foreign institutions, which may include foreign governments or corporate entities, such as banks and pension funds. Of those foreign owners, much is held by close allies, such as Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan… A relatively small amount (probably less than 10%, but growing ) is held by China, the Saudis, UAE, etc.

        The reason they buy it, is because despite how so many commentators find it fashionable to call those instruments “worthless IOU’s,” most financial managers around the world regard them as the safest investments around. (Much safer than gold at $1300/oz,)

  • KeninMontana

    The bill in question was authored by Sen. Jon Tester (MT-D), it is called the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. If anyone is actually interested in reading what the act actually says, you can find it here, http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/foresthome.cfm
    Edit: It was actually intended to open Federal lands to public and commercial use.

    • KeninMontana

      Apparently there are two bills as Tester’s bill and this bill Malkin linked to are different acts. After reading through it seems to authorize the sale of Federal lands mentioned in the act to the perspective states,but not to private entities or foreign governments or entities.

  • Anonymous

    AGENDA 21…. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. And conveniently just in time for the U.N. & the DIRT PEOPLE’S upcoming, 2012 Earth Summit. In which their TOP PRIORITIES and focus will be on “sustainable development” (Agenda 21) and DE-DEVELOPMENT (depopulation). Don’t believe it? Look it up! The U.N. isn’t trying to hide it! It is all coming together… watch for massive gun grabs, false flags, etc. Next they will find a way to make our Constitution irrelevant- because it’s “in the way” of their agenda!