Federal government via Trump cedes land BACK to the states

For reference, let’s refresh memories with an article from TheHill.com:

Obama creates, expands national monuments

by Timothy Cama

President Obama created and expanded more national monuments Thursday to honor the history of the fight for civil rights and to protect important landscapes in the West.

The national monument designations, coming about a week before Obama leaves office, further add to the aggressive conservation agenda the president has pursued throughout his eight years in office, fueled by unilateral land and water protections through the Antiquities Act.

Obama has now used the Antiquities Act in more instances than any of his predecessors. He already exceeded the land and water acreage of his successors before Thursday evening’s announcement.

Additionally, from the SierraClub.org:

President Obama Establishes Two New National Monuments in Nevada and Utah

by Jason Mark

Bears Ears and Gold Butte will complete the creation of a massive wildlife corridor in the Southwest

Christmas came a few days late for conservationists, but the presents were welcome nevertheless: Today President Obama used his authority under the Antiquities Act to establish two new national monuments in the Southwest. Together, the designation of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and the Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada gives added protections to some 1.6 million acres of land and, in the process, helps to complete a landscape-scale wildlife corridor north of the Colorado River.

What did that mean? This: with the stroke of a pen the federal government took state land. Plain and simple. 1.6 million acres of land. Public use? Go to hell. Private property? Go to hell.

The physical statistics are these: Barack Hussein Obama took an absolutely unprecedented 554,590,000 acres of land and sea out of use for private citizens and out of any form of due process in terms of deliberation or consideration..

This was clearly a last minute “fuck you” to the incoming administration, filed under the header of “because I can” as a lame duck president. There is no other phrase applicable other than “naked land grab.” Rights be damned.

However, where there are problems there are also remedies. First, from NPR.org:

Trump Orders Largest National Monument Reduction In U.S. History

by Kirk Siegler and Colin Dwyer

On a visit to Utah on Monday, President Trump announced his proclamations dramatically shrinking the size of the state’s two massive national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. Taken together, Trump’s orders mark the largest reversal of national monument protections in U.S. history.

On the heels of Obama’s largest land grab in history.

The Bears Ears National Monument will go from roughly 1.3 million acres to roughly 228,000 — only about 15 percent of its original size. And Grand Staircase will be diminished by roughly half, from its nearly 1.9 million acres to about 1 million. The specific numbers were provided to reporters by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke prior to Trump’s announcement in Salt Lake City.

This is, upon consideration, a staggering event. When is it ever that you’ve heard or seen the United State government relinquishing power or control over land? When is it that you’ve ever heard or seen the US government ceding land and control back to the states?

“No one values the splendor of Utah more than you do,” Trump told an enthusiastic crowd Monday, “and no one knows better how to use it.”

States rights. Individual control and determination. The polar opposite of the belief system involving Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots in which the bulk of the population is insufficiently capable of self-determination or future planning.

He noted that before making the decision, he had discussed it with Zinke and the state’s two GOP senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. Both senators have been outspoken critics of the two national monuments — both protected under the 1906 Antiquities Act by Democratic presidents — framing them as significant federal overreach that deprives Utahans of their own land.

And Trump echoed those criticisms Monday.

But wait; here is the true crux of the biscuit for this case and oh-so-many others.

“These abuses of the Antiquities Act give enormous power to faraway bureaucrats at the expense of the people who actually live here, work here and make this place their home,” Trump said.

Decisions made by persons far away and far removed from the ramifications of their decisions and edicts. This equates to = they primarily couldn’t care less in DC.

“President Trump’s decision to reduce these monuments allows us to still protect those areas that need protection, while at the same time keeping the area open and accessible to locals who depend on this land for their daily lives,” said Matt Anderson of the Utah-based Sutherland Institute.

Damn that logic.

Of course, let the lawsuits begin. From NARF.org:

PROTECTING BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT

President Obama proclaimed the Monument pursuant to his authority under the Antiquities Act, just as all presidents since Theodore Roosevelt had established national monuments. It was the culmination of more than six years of active effort on the part of five Native nations, local tribal people, and their allies to obtain protections for a region that is a sacred source of spiritual traditions and place of origin.

On April 26, 2017, President Trump attacked this important designation. Trump signed an executive order directing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to conduct a review of the Bears Ears National Monument to determine if it was created without “public outreach and proper coordination.” However, the suggestion that the monument’s designation lacked outreach and coordination is disingenuous. The Bears Ears National Monument was created after years of advocacy and many public meetings in the region and in Washington, DC. The effort to protect Bears Ears was very long, very public, and very robust.

Although Trump has stated that he will shrink the Monument, he does not have the authority to take such action.

Odd. What can be done by a president can be undone by a president. Take it to court. Nothing is a one-way process. If so, we’d all be Communists now. We’d all be Demorats now. We aren’t?

Wait. Aren’t these “rights” that were heretofore “unenjoyed” by any form of “indigenous peoples” prior to December of 2016? Why, yes, that is correct. Where was NARF during the Obama Administration prior to December of 2016? Oh yeah. Conspicuously SILENT.

From FoxNews.com:

Trump shrinks Utah monuments created by Obama, Clinton

by Bamini Chakraborty

Capping months of speculation, President Trump on Monday signed a pair of executive orders to significantly shrink two of Utah’s national monuments – Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante – that were created by his Democratic predecessors.

The controversial move was pitched by Trump as a win for states’ rights and follows an April review conducted by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on the boundaries of large national monuments. The review initially looked at more than two dozen sites designated by presidential decree since the 1990s.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thank you.

BZ

 

Obama wants to federalize US election system

Obama’s last chance to wear his finest powder blue uniform.

And anyone with half a wheelhouse would think this is an excellent reason, why?

From the AP.org:

US MOVE TO SECURE ELECTION SYSTEMS MEETS CRITICISM

by Tami Abdollah

WASHINGTON (AP) — A last-minute decision by the Obama administration to designate election systems as critical infrastructure drew intense criticism from state and federal elections organizations on Monday.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced the move Friday with 30 minutes’ notice to the National Association of Secretaries of State and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent bipartisan federal agency that develops voluntary voting guidelines and certifies voting systems.

If you’re a Leftist, perchance this sounds like a wonderful idea whose time has come. Who wouldn’t want to federalize the election system, right?

Christy McCormick, a commissioner for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, said the decision potentially gives significant authority to numerous federal agencies. “We don’t know how this will work. This has not been thought out (and) the scope of what they’re speaking about is huge,” she said.

Huge in what fashion? What would be affected?

Election infrastructure that would fall under the designation as defined by DHS includes storage facilities, polling places and vote tabulation locations, plus technology involved in the process, such as voter registration databases, voting machines and other systems used to manage the election process and report and display results.

Centralizing a system that is pretty much decentralized?

The election process in the U.S. is highly decentralized, with voters casting ballots in 185,000 precincts spread over 9,000 jurisdictions during the 2016 presidential election. It is also subject to rigorous and elaborate rules that govern how and what equipment is used.

But wait. Isn’t it Mr Obama and Demorats and Leftists who are insisting that the Russians hacked the elections and, by doing so, manipulated the system and the American electorate into installing Donald Trump as president-elect?

And, if so, centralizing our elections would therefore make them eminently more hackable because, absent centralization, in order to be effective, outside agents and actors would have to hack each and every one of the 185,000 precincts in order to acquire the greatest influence.

A move to centralize the election system is the equivalent of handing over our national voter system to the most efficacious of digital villains. What part of this makes any sense whatsoever?

Further — wait — wasn’t it the federal government that hacked into the Georgia state system?

With the stroke of a pen and a phone call — customary tactics for a president who knows his mandates won’t occur otherwise — Obama has “designated” that election systems are “critical infrastructure” and therefore subject to an unabashed power grab.

Just as, with the stroke of a pen and a phone call, Mr Obama “designated” 1.6 million acres of land in Utah and Nevada as “national monuments,” making it part of the largest federal land grab — over 260 million acres — in US history, all under Obama.

This is a huge, massive issue. With explosive potentialities. And it only lends credence to what many already suspected about the federal government under Obama and Leftists.

It is the job of the federal government to grow, to become expansive, invasive, expensive, intrusive. Government under Leftists wants to remove your freedoms and sell them back to you at wildly inflated rates and social costs.

Ask yourself: what is the benefit of a centralized election system in the digital era?

I think you have your answer.

Cui bono?

BZ

 

Your government working AGAINST you

Founders_Finger_GulagUnder Barack Hussein Obama.  With the overt and covert/tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama.

First, from the UKDailyMail.com:

FBI tells teachers to inform on students who express ‘anti-government’ and ‘anarchist’ political beliefs as high schools are ‘ideal targets’ for extremist recruiters

by Wills Robinson

  • Document urges faculty members to assess behavior of students 

  • They suggest to watch for certain signs, such as tendency toward violence

  • Bureau hopes indications could prevent future terrorist attacks 

  • They believed it would help reduce the number of youngsters joining terrorist or anti-government groups

It would seem to me the real “extremist recruiters” could be some of the teachers already employed in public schools.

The FBI wants teachers to inform on ‘anti-government’ or ‘anarchist’ students.

In a document titled ‘Preventing Violence and Extremism in Schools’, the bureau urges faculty members to assess concerning behavior of schoolchildren as they may be ’embracing extremist ideologies’.

They also list a number of indications, such as violent tendencies, which may be a sign they are planning an attack or may want to join a terrorist group.

Officials then want staff to pass on information to authorities in a bid to prevent any actions which could put others in danger.

In other words, the United States government wants to make an enemy out of me once again — but oddly enough, only during Leftist administrations.  The federal government wants to make an enemy of its soldiers, of those who believe in religion (excepting that of Islam) and those who believe in the Second Amendment.

Obama American CRAZIESThose who cling to their God and guns.  Who believe in the US Constitution.  Who believe in the Bill of Rights.  Who believe in a religion other than Islam.

Second, the US Department of Justice was actually contemplating prosecution of those who deny climate change/global warming.

Seriously.  The actual Obama-sanctioned Belief Police.

From TheBlaze.com:

AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

by Jon Street

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

A Democrat asked and was answered:

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

Corporations first.  You and me next.

Finally: who else is an enemy of the federal government, according to official US government documents as per Michael Snyder?

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

Am I — we — truly the danger to America?  Am I the one to be feared and tattled-upon?  Am I the one over which you should worry?

Obama True Danger To America

Or should you worry about a Hillary Clinton, a Bernie Sanders?

I think you have your answer.

BZ

 

The EPA: feces in the hallway

Shit On CarpetSometimes you just have to step back and wonder: “what the hell?”

This is one of those times.

From USAToday.com:

EPA appeals to its workers not to poop in the hallway

[I interject: yes, this is a real story. —BZ]

by Doug Stanglin

Forget toxic waste dumps, the Environmental Protection Agency apparently has a more immediate cleanup problem in its own backyard: An employee defecating in the hallway.

GovernmentExecutive.com, the government’s business news daily and key website for federal managers and executives, reported Wednesday that the EPA management for Region 8 in Denver sent an e-mail earlier this month to staff pleading to stop inappropriate bathroom behavior, including defecating in the hallway.

I ask again: are you serious?  The answer: completely serious.

GovernmentExecutive.com, the government’s business news daily and key website for federal managers and executives, reported Wednesday that the EPA management for Region 8 in Denver sent an e-mail earlier this month to staff pleading to stop inappropriate bathroom behavior, including defecating in the hallway.

In the e-mail, obtained by Government Executive, Deputy Regional Administrator Howard Cantor noted “several incidents” in the building, including clogging the toilets with paper towels and “an individual placing feces in the hallway” outside the restroom.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are your tax dollars at work.

You are paying for some federal government employee to crap on various hallways.  And for other federal employees to discover same.

From the WashingtonPost.com:

GovernmentExecutive.com obtained an e-mail from Denver EPA administrator Howard Cantor asking employees to please not leave feces in the hallway.

Here’s the critical excerpt from the article:

In the email, obtained by Government Executive, Deputy Regional Administrator Howard Cantor mentioned “several incidents” in the building, including clogging the toilets with paper towels and “an individual placing feces in the hallway” outside the restroom.

I’ll wager your job site has a similar plea: please don’t leave your personal feces in the hallway.

Just as it has an operations order regarding the preference of not pissing in your cubicle, but in actual toilets ascribed to the two genders.  As antiquated as that may be.

But, laughingly, here’s where the Leftist Captain Obvious steps in:

Confounded by what to make of this occurrence, EPA management “consulted” with workplace violence “national expert” John Nicoletti, who said that hallway feces is in fact a health and safety risk. He added the behavior was “very dangerous” and the individuals responsible would “probably escalate” their actions.

“Management is taking this situation very seriously and will take whatever actions are necessary to identify and prosecute these individuals,” Cantor wrote. He asked for any employees with knowledge of the poop bandit or bandits to notify their supervisor.

I actually had to write this post.  And I actually had to ascribe sources to its material.  And keep a straight face.

That bespeaks volumes in and of itself.

BZ

 

Texas Attorney General to the feds: NO

Texas_FlagFrom Breitbart.com:

Exclusive–Texas AG Abbott to BLM: ‘Come and Take It’

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action. 

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’  flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

[ That would be Molon Labe.– BZ ]

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab. 

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

The great state of Tejas seems to draw a line in the sand and make a stand.

As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:

  1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
  2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
  3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River.  To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
  4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
  5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

This is perhaps Rawhide Down.

Or is it not?

BZ