Top Republicans on Friday accused President Obama of a “surreptitious land grab” after the administration claimed more than 1 million acres in California, Texas, and Nevada, designating the land as new national monuments.

Mr. Obama formally designated the land Friday afternoon.

“One of the great legacies of this incredible country … is our national parks and national monuments. It is something that we pass on from generation to generation,” the president said in brief comments in the Oval Office.

With the move, Mr. Obama has established or expanded 19 national monuments, taking 260 million acres of land and placing it under the control of the federal government. Critics say the administration simply wants to expand government control across the country.

“This surreptitious land grab reveals that the Obama Administration will stop at nothing to lock up more and more land, with the stroke of a pen. I condemn this shameful power move, which makes states and citizens fearful that the federal government can invade at any time to seize more lands like bandits in the night,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The Obama administration claimed more than 1 million acres in California, Texas, ... more >
“How this decree impacts people and their livelihoods — including public safety, water rights, economic development, recreation and grazing — should be handled by Congress before a designation, not after the fact. Once again, the Obama administration has put politics above people. Now, Congress is left to fix the mess made by the White House,” Mr. Bishop said.

Read more:

Views: 704

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is now 6:53 P.M. CST here in Deep East Texas, and I just now found this email, and have steam coming out my ears!!!!  I will be on the phone tomorrow raising H E Double Hockey Sticks!  The Park Service can't keep the older parks maintained as it is because there is no money.  This came up during Bush's administration.  Water rights and grazing rights are a big deal here, and just imagine the water rights problem in California, who is busy protecting the Delta Smelt!  In the meantime, their farmers can't plant their land, so prices of fruits and vegetables go up.

Just wait until the Communist Obama-loving Democrats put up a statue of him on that confiscated land in Texas.   Won't that make you feel better?  (sarcasm)

Think what you will, but the word is reserved not preserved, for the Chinese and Russians and UN.

Oh no we are in trouble if Congress has to fix it

It will get  to a point where we won't have any place to live besides demorats designated areas, all of nature will be given the land that we worked so hard for. According to the demogoons all other creatures have more rights then we do. They are working on it with the wildlife preservation laws.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... That's all we here from these lawless moves by 0bama from congress. We have YET to see ANYTHING they have done to reverse IT!

The States are at fault for permitting this unconstitutional  land-grabbing. No principle or spine. And so goes our liberty and the sovereignty of the States and People.

Somewhere there is a bullet with this bastard's name on it.  I long for the day the two are introduced.

I don't play well with communists, muslims, liberals or democrats.

This is the Left's devious plan to pay back some of the debt to the Chinese. I wonder how they plan to gift wrap all of it?

Rhinos prance dance
Like they care....

Impeach this communist before he can do any further damage to this country.  If Congress needs some guts (for lack of the word I would prefer to use), we can send some up to them.  John Cornyn better be on this for the State of Texas.  He is just a hair away from the wrath of all of Texas for his voting record. 

Funny how it matches up with Agenda 21...Semper Fi Nam 66-67




Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

( – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service