This week, it was announced that budget cuts would now include canceling the Mars missions. However, Rep. Cliff Steans (R-FL) wants to go further. In a recent speech, Steans called for the selling off of national park lands. We have previously seen states sell off park lands, government buildings and other property — even as we burned hundreds of billions in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In a town hall meeting Belleview, Florida, on February 25 that Steans stated “we don’t need any more national parks in this country” and that we need to “actually sell off some of our national parks.” That is a remarkable proposal since national parks are the most successful program in the government with rising demands of citizens visiting parks and sites. One would think we would be expanding the parks not cutting off one of the most popular government programs.
Here is the full statement:
I got attacked in a previous town meeting for not supporting another national park in this country, a 200-mile trailway. And I told the man that we don’t need more national parks in this country, we need to actually sell off some of our national parks, and try and do what a normal family would do is — they wouldn’t ask Uncle Joe for a loan, they would sell their Cadillac, or they would take their kids out of private schools and put them into public schools to save to money instead of asking for their credit card to increase their debt ceiling.
Putting aside the thousands of jobs and millions of recreational hours supplied to citizens through these parks, we continue to show a bizarre sense of priority in sending billions abroad to fund wars in countries with growing anti-American sentiments. Instead of saving hundreds of billions of dollars, we will instead continue to cut educational, scientific, and environmental programs that protect our future.
Source: Think Progress as first seen on Reddit
Elaine,
Vince knows all the arguments.
Neil, if they grant Orly Taitz cert, then I will believe. Until then, the lower court decision stands. Give it a rest.
Orly really needs to pay her fines and go back to doing whatever she does for a day job.
“I really don’t care that he is President despite the fact that he is arguably not eligible to hold the office.”
1) It’s only arguable if you don’t understand either citizenship or the rules of evidence.
2) If you don’t care that he is President, then his eligibility is a moot point. This indicates another reason for your challenging his citizenship. Two words that start with “r” come to mind.
Gene,
I found this:
Vince Treacy 1, April 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Sandstone: “Obama is a citizen born in Hawaii. Maybe someone here would like to address the fact that he was born a Brit subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. His father was a British subject and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship to her son. Obama may be a U.S. citizen, but Natural Born Citizen as required in the Constitution?”
Wrong.
Obama was born a “subject” of the United States in Hawaii in 1961, subject to the jurisdiction of the US, under the 14th Amendment.
Obama was never subject to British Empire or Kenyan power or jurisdiction.
His father was a lawfully admitted exchange student who was also completely subject to US jurisdiction.
Obama COULD have claimed Kenyan citizenship when he grew up, but he never did.
His mother was a natural born United States citizen.
Sandstone is pathetically confused, since, if Obama HAD been born in Kenya, his mother MIGHT have been too young to convey citizenship, IF she had not lived for five years after age 14 in the US. But Obama was born in the US, so that does not apply.
Sandstone is flogging a crank constitutional theory.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/27/birth-of-a-nation-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/#comment-226362
The supreme court is about as competent as they come Otteray. Read what it said in Minor v. Happersett.
I am interested in the Constitutional principle, Bron. I really don’t care that he is President despite the fact that he is arguably not eligible to hold the office. Too much land in government hands is a bad thing. I agree.
I’m sorry! I meant to say “two Starbucks”. Preferably one built inside the other.
Who needs cherry trees when you can have a Starbucks and an Abercrombie & Fitch and a Spencer’s Gifts all paying rent to a private owner, Bob?
So we’ll sell the National Mall and turn it into Steans Strip Mall?
“So we’ll sell the National Mall and turn it into Steans Strip Mall?”
Bob,
You know I can remember many a hot day strolling down the National Mall being thirsty, hungry and needing air conditioning. Perhaps if there were a McDonald’s located there I could have had a Whopper and a Coke, as I looked out upon the Washington Monument? That’s the ticket.
Neil, that has been litigated and dismissed by Courts of competent jurisdiction. It is a non-starter argument. Give it up, because beating your head against a brick wall is hard on the wall.
I’m here for the same reason you are, idealist. To learn and exchange ideas.
Neil:
this has been gone over at length on numerous threads.
He is the pres. at this point he could be from Barsoom and it is not going to put him out of office. Give it up and if you dont like him, vote for Romney or Ralph Nader in November.
But it would be a good idea to get rid of some of the public lands owned by the federal government. the major national parks should remain as national parks although you can make the case for private ownership. But I think if the government is going to sell Yosemite they should offer shares to all of us for a reasonable price. I know I would buy as much as I could afford.
Maybe some of those millions of acres of federal land could be used as reparations for American blacks who could prove they are the descendants of slaves.
Perhaps I should clarify, Elaine. His mom was a citizen, his father wasn’t, and therefore doesn’t fit the Minor Court”s description of a natural-born citizen which is a child born in a country of parents who were its citizens.
Idealist, See the plural nouns in this phrase “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” President Obama only had a citizen parent, not citizen parents. There are several scenarios in which a person is a U.S. citizen due to being born in the U.S., but natural-born citizens have to have citizen parents according to the Minor Court.
Neil,
You said the President’s PARENTS were not citizens.
Well Neil, I’ll drop the ridicule and the statements that birtherism is thinly disguised racism just about the time birtherism stops being ridiculous and thinly disguised racism.
Thanks Gene, I’ll take a look. By the way, you should really stop with the appeals to ridicule and trying to play the race card.
Many people who use the term “race card” do so because they are racists, perhaps some aren’t.
Neil,
Where does it say that both parents have to be citizens.
We have many of which no parent was American, who are granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born here. Or am I wrong on that, with the exception of children born to diplomats.
And if your crap has any merit, why did it not get anywhere with all the 1%’s money available to drive it? Apparently no legal merit, I would conclude.
And why the hell are you here? Trolling is your sport????
Neil,
Go back through this blog and look for birther threads. Search the name “Vince Treacy”. Do your own homework. I’m not going to repeat the arguments again simply because you want to create a distraction on this thread. The issue here is not Obama’s citizenship. It’s not even remotely close to the topic at hand other than the asshat suggesting we sell off our national parks is sympathetic to birtherism’s racism by proxy.
Elaine, the issue is not with his mother, but with his father being a British citizen.