The Great Outdoors Initiative

Not quite ten years ago, in May of 2001, Robert Tracinski wrote the following:

Past regulations have been imposed in the same manner that the new, less-restrictive process is being adopted: by executive-branch decree. The result of those decrees over the past three decades has been a vast environmentalist land grab, with millions of acres of land sealed off from logging, mining, grazing and even recreation. This is a basic technique used by the Left to achieve through the regulatory agencies what they could not achieve in an open vote. The technique is to introduce legislation to achieve some vague, positive-sounding generality, such as “worker safety” or “environmental protection” – things no politician will want to go on record voting against….

Consider that federal regulatory agencies make thousands of rulings each year, adding about 80,000 pages annually to the Federal Register. Do you think Congress can exercise “oversight” by debating all 80,000 pages of these regulations? Do you think the president, his advisors and his cabinet officers can consider and personally approve all of these decrees?

Of course not.

And the very process which Robert Tracinski describes above, far from diminishing, has suddenly accelerated. To wit:

On April 16th, 2010, Barack Obama released a so-called Presidential Memorandum, which he and his clownish administration termed “A 21st Century Strategy for America’s Great Outdoors.” Did you hear about it? You’re not alone. In fact, that’s part of the point: legislation by stealth.

Quoting Michelle Malkin:

Across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It’s another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life….

Take my home state of Colorado. The Obama administration is considering locking up some 380,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and private land in Colorado under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin and the Alpine Triangle would be shut off to mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and recreational activities. Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, blasted the administration’s meddling: “Deer and elk populations are thriving, and we in Colorado don’t need help from the federal government in order to manage them effectively.”

The bureaucrats behind Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative” plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative’s taxpayer-funded website has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks.

Make no mistake: this issue is entirely about private property, which is the crux of freedom, and which the religion of environmentalism explicitly seeks to do away with.


  • Redmond

    August 16, 2010

    American Socialist Voter–
    Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
    A: Seventy

    Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
    A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
    Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

    Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
    A: See the listing below

    Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
    Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

    Vice Chairs
    Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
    Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
    Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
    Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

    Senate Members
    Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

    House Members
    Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
    Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
    Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
    Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
    Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
    Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
    Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
    Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
    Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
    Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
    Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
    Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
    Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
    Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
    Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
    Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
    Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
    Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
    Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
    Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
    Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
    Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
    Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
    Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
    Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
    Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
    Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
    Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
    Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
    Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
    Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
    Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
    Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
    Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
    Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
    Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
    Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
    Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
    Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
    Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
    Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
    Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
    Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
    Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
    Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
    Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
    Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
    Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
    Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
    Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
    Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
    Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
    Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
    Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
    Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
    Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
    Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
    Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
    Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
    Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
    Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
    Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
    Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
    Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
    Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

  • redomondo

    August 18, 2010

    How about this initiative!

    The US is doomed to a century of decline through inability to compete with cheaper labor rates unless the State is curtailed. Raising personal taxes is a non-starter because it would do nothing to increase production of material wealth. Alternatively, lowering corporate taxes, say from 35% to 30%, would merely shift tax burden from corporations to consumers because the Fed banksters would simply monetize whatever additional debt would be needed to fund government, thereby stealing capital from private savings. And Keynesian economics is, well, for idiots. We’ve seen how well that works.

    The only way out is to vote only for politicians who say that they want to take a cleaver to the scope and scale of government at all levels. Here is what needs to be done:

    1. Eliminate regulatory agencies like Labor, Energy, OSHA, EPA, DEA, BATFE, FBI, CIA, DHS and all other crap agencies that produce little and have no Constitutional basis. Successively slash the remaining agencies’ budgets – including social welfare programs – and retirement schemes 25% for three years straight to lower the cost of bureaucracy.

    2. Immediately end the military empire – close all overseas bases and bring the troops home. That will save about $600 billion annually.

    3. Eliminate the thieving $700 billion TARP fund.

    4. Sell ALL federal land, buildings and other property. It’s probably all worth on the order of 3 to 4 trillion. Let a nice company like Apple use the White House as great Class A office space. Governments can lease what they need for their tax parasites’ needs. The cheaper and more drab, the better.

    Doing these things would allow the US and state governments to virtually eliminate the need for taxes, either direct or via currency inflating. This de-nationalizing of American labor or elimination of serfdom would result in capital returning to the US with a massive expansion in job growth and economic activity. The downside, if one could call it that, is that the jig would be up for the social and corporate welfare queens.

    This is the sort of thing you hear from only one major politician. Who is it? Hint: he has two first names and the establishment reviles him.

  • ScummyD

    August 27, 2010

    I wonder how libertarians would defend the nation’s interests with zero overseas military bases and no FBI or CIA. I think the only thing perhaps more unrealistic than the liberals can’t-we-all-just-get-along ankle grabbing diplomacy is the retreat called for by people like Ron Paul.

  • Ray

    August 27, 2010

    ScummyD, I agree with that completely, and it’s one of several reasons I’ve never been comfortable with the libertarian label — though I’m constantly classified as such.

    If you’re interested in hearing how libertarians do address that point, there’s a lengthy but interesting debate between Roderick Long — an erudite anarchocapitalist and Phd in philosophy from Harvard — and Robert Bidinotto, an Objectivist who believes in a limited government that has police, military, and courts. It’s a civil and smart debate, and it’s worth reading:

  • Redmond

    August 29, 2010

    So exactly how is the American Citizens interests being served by having a war on drugs, a global war on terror, a federal government sliding into totalitarianism, bankruptcy through an overseas military presence and massive Stasi like intelligence operation, and warfare/welfare state that they cannot afford, not o mention more people in jail than china…

    You guys gotta pull the plug on your federal govt for about 10 years -‘let the stars get their house in order and

  • Redmond

    August 29, 2010

    States get their house in order and maybe get back together if it suits their purposes…

    Otherwise you guys are in for a long walk down the road to serfdom…

  • Redmond

    August 29, 2010

    In any case, “boots on the ground” is an old school concept…
    You have a ridiculous number of carrier strike groups.
    And don’t forget your B-52, B-1, B-2, submarine and strategic nuclear forces.
    Given that the US currently spends as much on military “defEnce” as the rest of he world combined(not including black budgets, or the CIA) and your economy is still in the tank, to really need to ask yourself if your current federal structure is still worth keeping.
    Whose interests are it serving exactly?

  • Redmond

    August 29, 2010

    Sorry for all the typos…

  • ScummyD

    September 5, 2010

    Thank you Ray. I am interested and will check that out. Roderick Long?

    I support a fairly aggressive and muscular foreign policy, Redmond, but that does not mean I am a proponent of “the current federal structure.” I was simply wondering how American interests would be defended in the world with zero overseas military bases and no FBI or CIA, as you advocated. In response to your litany of slash and burn policy proscriptions it is a reasonable thing to wonder. I am not sure why you commented as you did rather than explain your proposed ideas.

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    Got the slash and burn suggestions from a post on another site, but I do agree with them.

    I will now composE my full explanation of the points I made.

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    But further to my points – that I will expand upon posthaste, what are “Americas Interests”?

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field