Last Wednesday King Donnie issued an Executive Order to the Interior Department of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika ordering its members to review monument designations and make any "needed" changes to the present list of national parks and monuments. Predictably, environmental wackos came crawling out from under their rocks issuing pronouncements that the SDA was doomed to be overrun by profit seeking businesses raping and pillaging previously protected lands. Also quite predictably, the media ran extensive stories on the reasons why "we," whoever that is, need federally protected lands in this country. I saw no article in support of our King's EO.
Robert Cassady of Louisville (the Denver suburb, not the city in Kentucky) wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post that I believe succinctly summarizes the views of the environmental socialists among us. Allow me to quote sections of it here:
"National parks and monuments are one of this nation's greatest inventions. That the new president is changing the meaning of a monument from a place that is protected to one subject to the whims of those currently in power sounds more like actions in a Third World dictatorship than in our great nation. Lands such as the Grand Staircase, Organ Mountains and Bears Ears are among the most spectacular and are cherished by millions. If you think it is wrong to dismantle protection for such places, contact the president, those in Congress, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to let them know that our lands should not be compromised."
Let's consider Ryan's arguments here today. He begins by proudly declaring that he is a socialist. His belief that national parks and monuments are "one of this nation's greatest inventions" is an adoring tribute to the religious doctrine of common ownership of land, an integral part of the socialist religion. In a truly free nation there would be no land owned by the civil government. Land that was unused would remain unused until somebody decided to use it. Then it would become the property of the person using it. Land that was used would all be privately held and the owners would be free to do with their land whatever they please. But we do not live in a free country. We live in a socialist paradise.
Ryan bemoans that King Donnie's EO would make the management of federal lands subject to the "whims" of whoever is currently in power. Please tell me Ryan, how did former King Obama's late term land grab not also perfectly exemplify a case of the whim of one in power dramatically changing the federal land ownership landscape? Apparently in Ryan's world the only direction federal ownership of land is permitted to go is towards more of it, not less. He presents no rational or moral argument why this should be so. He simply assumes that federal ownership of lands, especially lands that are then removed from productive use, is always good. That is called worship of the State.
I had go wipe the tears from my eyes after reading that "millions" of people currently recreate in the Grand Staircase NM, I was laughing so hard. I don't know anything about the Organ Mountains and I have never been to Bears Ears but I have been to the Grand Staircase many times and I can assure you that it does not experience millions of human visitors. In fact, Grand Staircase is one of those places where you can go for days without seeing anyone. So I find it very hard to buy Ryan's argument that there is a socialist and populist uprising in favor of the federal takeover of the Grand Staircase.
Ryan believes that it is morally wrong to "dismantle protections for such places." (Strange....of all of the times I have been to the Grand Staircase I have never sensed that it was under attack or in need of any sort of protection. I wonder what Ryan has experienced there?) He does not bother to define what he means by "dismantle protections," I suspect that is the case because all of his fellow socialists and worshipers of environmentalism already know what he means. I think I know what he means even though I am not an environmental wacko. In Ryan's world "protection" means that the land can never be used by a profit seeking business. Any economic development of land is evil in the eyes of Ryan and his ilk. When Utah legislators were unwilling to create a law forbidding any economic development in the Grand Staircase former King Obama stepped up to the plate, stole their land and pronounced it to forever remain undeveloped. Ryan believes that is a moral thing to do because "our" lands, whoever "our" represents, should never be "compromised," whatever that means.
The tragedy of the commons is what results when there is public ownership of an asset. When everyone owns something, as Ryan claims all citizens of the SDA do in regards to the Grand Staircase, then nobody truly owns that property and its management is left to career politicians and bureaucrats who bow to the whims of the most vocal political partisans. That is precisely what happened when former King Obama conducted a federal land grab that gobbled up millions of acres of state owned land and transferred it to the federal government.
The one argument that I have been unable to find anywhere has nothing to do with whether "we" own public lands. It also has nothing to do with how those lands are managed. The key argument in this issue, which also happens to be the motivating factor in King Donnie's EO, is whether or not the federal government has the right to steal lands from the states. The socialism that we live under tolerates no states rights. Socialism only operates properly when the federal government is in control of everything. Socialists are most happy only when federal rules and regulations dominate all of life and the individual states are forbidden from competing with the federal system. That is what Donnie's EO is all about. Donnie wants the Interior Department to think about scaling back its activities in stealing land from the states.
When former King Obama created the Grand Staircase National Monument he stole that land from the state of Utah. Yes, I understand that the state of Utah should not own it either but that is missing the point. On what moral basis does the federal government have the right to, with the stroke of a pen, declare that millions of acres of state owned land is suddenly removed from future development? How can the act of signing a piece of paper by a King transfer ownership of millions of acres from a state to the federal government? Activities such as those conducted by former King Obama would have created armed insurrections in the states not that many years ago. Not so today. We live in a socialist paradise and everything the federal government does is sanctified simply because the federal government does it. Ryan, and most of the other idolatrous citizens of this immoral country, worships at the throne of civil power in the SDA and he is highly agitated when men like King Donnie challenge his presuppositions about how things should be. I don't think I will be writing my Congressman or giving King Donnie a call (although he has said I can advise him any time I feel the urge). Returning the lands of the Grand Staircase to the citizens of Utah would be a good idea. Who knows? Maybe the enterprising Mormons in that state could convince their legislators to sell the whole place off to the highest bidders. Now that would be paradise indeed.