silvereagle

You've got to see this.

Wow, it answers a lot of questions.:

Taking Liberty - How Private Property is Being Abolished in America

__________________
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I listened to the opening audio with "My Country Tis of Thee." That was really beautiful. I really felt that. I'm not really someone who takes pride in such things either.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

silvereagle

Try clicking through and watch the presentation.
It is a serious learning experience.

__________________
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org

Wheeldog

Sorry, but I do not agree with the message. This website is obviously designed to equate its message with patriotism and national pride and to suggest that what it is attacking is "unAmerican" and somehow intended to take away our cherished freedoms. First, public lands (nat. forests, wildlife refuges, parks, historic sites, etc.) belong to all citizens. Yes, there are restrictions as to how they are used, but these lands are a national heritage designed to be passed on from one generation to the next. In some cases, these protected areas include critical watersheds, timber producing forests, important wildlife habitat, and prime recreational areas.

Contrary to the impression of this website, the total acreage of public land has been declining - not increasing. Case in point, in the late 1970s, virtually all of Alaska was public federal lands. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that turned over tens of millions of acres to the State of Alaska taking it out of federal ownership. Some of the remaining federal lands were designated as protected conservation areas. Most lands incorporated in national parks, refuges and other designations have historically been federal lands. When the new parks and refuges were created in Alaska, individuals who owned property within those units continued to own them and were guarenteed access across public lands.

Tokenconservative

In the meantime, literally tens of thousands of acres, over the same time period, of previously in-production farmland has been taken out of production, much of it allowed to return to its native state.

That may change now, with the big, letist push to produce more and more ethonol...from biomass, usually corn.

But whose fault will that be if it comes to pass that all the lands currently being naturally returned to their native state in a sort of voluntary creation of the Popov's Buffalo Commons, are forced back into production to produce ethonol?

Tokie

Samuballoon

Unless you're exceptionally wealthy, it is unfathomable to me why you might be so up in arms about private ownership in the first place. Why don't we make a comparison? East Coast vs West Coast? The public lands out here in Oregon are managed intelligently (for the most part), they are accessible to the public, and provide a sustainable source of lumber, which is essential to our economy. In my experience with the east coast, which admittedly is not as extensive, it seems like everything is owned by someone. You can't pick out a lake on a map and go visit it, because it might have a gated community all around it and be completely inaccessible. This might be better for the wealthy people who can afford to buy a lake and then close themselves off from the world, but not so much for the common man. Why do people have to own something to enjoy it?

Wheeldog

Where did that happen? I worked in conservation for many years, including extended assignments in Washington, D.C. assisting in the development of legislation related to public lands and resources. I am not aware of "tens of thousands of acres" of previously productive agricultural lands being taken out of production. Indeed, many national conservation system sites include and encourage sustainable agricultural activities. You may not be aware of the fact that federal lands under the care of the Bureau of Land Management are managed for grazing, mining and other multiple uses. The Forest Service lands also provide for commercial timber harvest and other consumptive purposes. A number of national parks and monuments have provisions for limited agriculture and, in preserves, for sport hunting.

I have worked with representatives of farmers and other private land owners who wanted to have the boundaries of a national park expanded to encompass their properties. They wished to protect the land from being broken up into suburban developments resulting in the decline of traditional rural lifestyles. They knew that although their properties would then be inside of a park, it would continue to be private property unless they voluntarily decided to sell or donate it to the park.