It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Bill Seeks First Native American Land Grab in 100 Years

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

DUDE!! IT WAS ORIGINALLY AMERICAN INDIAN LAND!!




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

What do you make of it? It looks to me based on the two articles that you linked there that you've got the fed being the good guy and protecting this land. Does that mean they actually will? I'm not so sure. You've got mining interests hovering in the background here. Will they put a big uranium mine out there in a few years? Maybe. Would the states treat the land any better? Probably not, but I must admit I'm not too studied on it. It seems like they might have been behind the funny papers that the article you linked mentioned though.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Boadicea

What do you make of it? It looks to me based on the two articles that you linked there that you've got the fed being the good guy and protecting this land.


Shame on me!!! My default position is that if the feds are involved it's rotten to the core... and I blame them first!

I think my main point at the time I posted was to point out that whether the land is taken via the Utah reps' bill or via the monument designation requested by the coalition of tribes, the feds are trying to take control of that land one way or another.... it's just a matter of what will be done with it after that. This all strikes me as pole positioning more than anything at this point.


Does that mean they actually will? I'm not so sure. You've got mining interests hovering in the background here. Will they put a big uranium mine out there in a few years? Maybe. Would the states treat the land any better? Probably not, but I must admit I'm not too studied on it.


I believe the states might be a little more responsive to the public... at least initially... but only to the extent that they have to be in order to be re-elected. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we give all the power to the states, I expect them to be just as bad as the feds. Those mining interests, for example, don't care who they have to bribe -- states or feds. That isn't going to change. So the balance of power must change.

I believe our best option is break up the federal monopoly, and for the feds/states/tribes/people to have joint responsibility and authority. The second step is for the feds to implement a new homesteading program, and turn as much federal land over to the people as possible, with strict limitations on ownership and use of the land.


It seems like they might have been behind the funny papers that the article you linked mentioned though.


I have the same thought. Especially since government propaganda is "legal" now...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I wasn't saying that I think the federal govt. is being the good guy here, just that that's what it looks like. I am also skeptical that their intentions are actually pure.



new topics

top topics
 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join