Ted Cruz Wants to Allow Selling of National Parks, Strip Government of Federal Lands

ted-cruz-foxI guess it’s safe to say that Ted Cruz is a fan of welfare rancher (and racist) Cliven Bundy.  Well at least if you go by his amendment to the Sportsman Act of 2014 that would prevent the federal government from owning more than 50 percent of the land in any one state.  It would require that they turn over management of the excess land to the state itself.

States where the federal government currently owns over 50 percent of the land are Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Oregon and Alaska.

If this amendment passed, the burden of maintaining these lands would then fall to the state’s taxpayers or be sold off to private interests.

You know, for things like fracking, drilling, mining and logging.

And that’s really what this is all about.  It’s not about “giving the land back to the states.”  It’s about trying to sell much of this land to private corporations so millions (or even billions) can be made by ruining some of the most pristine land in this country.

It’s about taking some of our national parks and wildlife refuges and turning them into wastelands for oil and gas drilling. It’s about turning forests into barren fields where thousands of trees once grew.  It’s about masking greed under the guise of “giving the land back to the people.”

Luckily this amendment has almost no chance at passing as this “movement” to sell off public lands is really only supported by the far-right fringe of the Republican party.  Even several of the Republican sponsors of this bipartisan bill that passed 82-12 stopped the progress of the bill once Cruz added his amendment.

But leave it to Ted Cruz to take a simple bipartisan bill and turn it into some ridiculous attempt to strip land from the federal government.  Not only that, but waste time and taxpayer money in the process as the Senate is now forced to go through the process of dismissing this amendment before the bill can move forward.

When Ted Cruz runs for president in 2016 (trust me, it’s happening) I’m actually looking forward to his campaign.  It’s sure to be one of the most ridiculous, radical, right-wing pandering propaganda campaigns in the history of presidential primaries.  His aversion to facts and truth is staggering.  While fact-checkers are sure to earn their money during the 2016 GOP primary, I wouldn’t be shocked to see some demanding bonuses for covering Ted Cruz’s campaign.

And while he stands next to no chance at winning his party’s nomination, it should make for great entertainment.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • marecek21

    Good for him. Now back to a serious story.

  • Lee JJ

    I agree. I can’t wait to see him make a gaping anus out of himself. The whole GOP, for that matter.

    • Mikey

      lol, you guys are always thinking about things like gaping anuses. Degenerates.

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    He doesn’t care what happens to the U.S.A. Canada is his country and they don’t want him back. Can we please move on from this nut job?

    • Francine Anoia Price

      He can’t run for president. He wasn’t born in the US. 3:) I want to see his birth certificate.

      • Bill Grant

        Exactly Francine, with all the crap that the lunatics in the GOP pulled for years about Obama’s birth certificate, they are going to be in for a world of payback should this idiot chose to run.

      • People Corporation

        Sorry, your POS muzzie set the precedence on that legal matter You don’t get to see his BC. You have no standing.

      • Mikey

        His birth certificate is released and he is a natural born citizen, even though he was born in Canada.

        Liberals aren’t too smart.

      • Suzanne St. John

        According to our Constitution, he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as BOTH parents must be US citizens at the time of the child’s birth in the US. If you do not believe this then read Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758) read and followed by our Founding Fathers. I am NOT a liberal, I am a Constitutional Conservative.

      • dogdiedonce

        4 states have ruled him eligible. Drop the hate if possible.

    • Marie McCloskey Brown

      Sorry but he has given up his Canadian Citizenship. Which means he is now all American.

      • Brian Barber

        But he wasn’t born here. So we will never have to worry about him being president.

      • Jay Dub

        He’s no American!

      • Rob

        If he had to give up his Canadian citizenship, that implies he was a Canadian citizen before, doesn’t it? And that’s Not American, by definition. (It’s Canadian.). So he should not be allowed to run.

      • William Fite

        Ever heard of dual citizen? Are are you too ignorant to know that?

      • Charles Vincent

        My money is on the former…

      • Kelly Roberts

        Dual citizenship!!

      • Nancy

        He had dual citizenship twerp because he was born in Canada but his mother was an American Citizen working in Canada. Boy what dummies these people are. He is natural born. He never had to be naturalized. Good grief.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Constitution says natural born. Doesn’t matter what he did with his Canadian citizenship (and I can’t help but notice he only did that recently when it became a negative issue.

      • Gary Menten

        If even one of his parents was American when he was born, then he is a natural born American. George Romney was born in Mexico. He ran for president. No-one challenged his eligibility. He wasn’t black or a Democrat.

      • Jamroast

        Well it would have been challenged if he was black or Dem for sure…

      • Not necessary. A black man could never have won even the Democratic nomination in 1968. However you are correct in that there is a double standard.

      • Cindy Gudel

        Interesting- then why was Obama’s natural born citizenship ever questioned, since his mother was an American citizen? Quite frankly, I agree with you and always wondered why it was ever an issue – wasn’t Cruz one of the birthers?

      • Suzanne St. John

        You are right, obummer is NOT a Natural Born Citizen since both parents must be US citizens at the time of the child’s birth in the US. We have a congress that doesn’t give a damn what our Constitution stands for.

      • irenehoule

        For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[9]
        The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
        One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
        The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
        A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu mean @ the time of CONCEPTION?

      • Stephen Barlow

        How long was his Mother a Canadian? Because his father is a Castro Rebel.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Many say that it wasn’t a natural birth either. Wasn’t he conceived during the Roswell Incident?

      • Kelly Roberts

        He was “natural born” no matter in what country he was born because his mother was a US citizen in good standing when he was born!! John McCain also was not physically born in the United States but he was still a US citizen.

      • Mikey

        He is a natural born citizen. “Natural born” means he has the right of citizenship at birth. Sorry.

  • stormkite

    Don’t sell the lunatics short. In any list of potential GOP nominees, Ted’s got to be in the top 3. He’s probably the only person psychotic enough for the “conservative” wing of the sociopath party (or did I get that backwards? SO hard to tell these days…)

  • Steve Morschauser

    I, too, will enjoy watching this fascist pig bastard run for president.

  • Bud

    We can only hope and pray that he wins the Republican nomination in 2016. That would virtually assure 4 more years on the White House under sane control.

    • Gary Menten

      Karl Rove will never allow this putz to win the GOP nomination. He will select some electable (or so he thinks) Romneyesque white guy in a suit who he thinks can win over swing voters and make sure that this guy’s campaign gets funneled as much corporate cash as possible.

      • CharlieSelf

        Probably Romney again. What the hell: Romney’s a champion loser.

      • Gary Menten

        I haven’t ruled out the possibility myself.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        rove is losing power,,,,,, and the tea (bag) party will wrestle .
        I like how the regressives tell us their ( weekly) changing candidate
        hows the ben carson THANG goin’??
        gary & I are dying with laughter

      • Gary Menten

        Never underestimate Karl Rove. He continues to have deep ties to bottomless pockets.

  • Steve Zakszewski

    Are you kidding? The entire GOP is now the far right fringe. Even moderates in the GOP are moronic Alex Jones types and birthers. What we used to think of as moderate Republicans are now mainstream Democrats.

  • Erma

    I don’t think that private industry should own more of a state than the government is allowed. It’s far more likely that resources would be exploited at great cost to the people who live there – look at polluted ground water and rivers in several coal/fracking states recently.

  • Adam of Portland

    Oregon would keep the lands intact, but we’d go broke doing it. Not sure about the other states.

    • Ruffslitch

      So it’s okay for the feds to take MY money in the form of income tax from me down here in Georgia and redistribute it to keep YOUR state pristine because you all would go broke taking care of your own land? So who are they supposed to steal from to keep Georgia pretty? And with nearly half of people paying NO income tax and the trajectory worsening as fewer people find work how long will you be able to enjoy your liberal paradise before the whole pyramid scheme collapses?

      • LarryM

        Georgia can slip into the gulf Mexico, Take there guns with them. I live in Western Colorado where Oil/Gas, Shale development have decimated some of the beautiful country in the world.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Ruffslitch, before you go very far down that road, check the list of how much GA gets in federal dollars per dollar of taxes it sends to the feds.

  • Sandy Greer

    I’ve been in each of those five states. Utah, in particular, is breathtakingly, heartbreakingly, beautiful. With Alaska a close second.

    Our national parks are our national treasure. Where one can go, and gaze upon the distance, and still their mind.

    ^^^That should remain sacrosanct.

    • Debra Shawver

      Maybe so…but Constitutionally the FEDS have NO right to any ownership…the Constitution says they can ONLY own land for ports and forts…….and the 10 miles around DC….the rest belongs to the States…NOT the feds

  • chaserblue

    Does anyone ever get the feeling that they throw Teddy boy out there as a cautionary tale of what can happen if we don’t stick by the status quo in the GOP? It’s like they WANT us to see what can happen if we let the baggers get too far…

  • Jay Dub

    This plays perfectly into the Koch brother’s hands. Really, does he think nobody is paying attention?

  • Rob

    I don’t believe he is a naturalized citizen. Not that the term is clearly defined anyway. But if Obama got grief from the birthers, they better do the same to Cruz.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Dumb Question: In the states that the feds own more than 50% of the land, is it the same agency that owns all the land or are there different agencies involved.

    For example, in taking back the National Park Service lands in Nevada, do they also get the Air Force Bases (including the ultra-high security ones there ) ?

    • Gary Menten

      That’s far from being a dumb question. I’d say it’s pretty good one.

  • Matthew Reece

    It is better for lands used for resource collection to be privately owned because it makes it more productive to take care of the land than to strip the land bare, fly by night, and leave taxpayers to clean up the mess, which is what is incentivized when.governments control lands used by loggers, miners, drillers, and other resource collectors.

    • poppaDavid

      Please read the history of Love Canal.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am aware of that case of corporate and government mismanagement of toxic waste. Remember that a free market has no corporations or governments.

      • poppaDavid

        The toxic waste was handled by private land owners for personal profit. Our country does have corporations, so when you talk of private owners who “take care of the land” you must implicitly include corporations, or explicitly exclude them.

  • danny mathey

    President 2016 ?…..Cruz hasn’t a snow balls chance in HELL…..

  • Carolina Prudom

    Where are the birthers when you need them?

  • FD Brian

    The best thing that can happen is to have Cruz run and then have the others just annihilate him in the debates to show everyone how stupid his thought process is.

    • strayaway

      Cruz was the national college debate champion one year. Rick Perry, Jeb, and the gang are unlikely to beat him in a debate. Karl Rove would have better luck having some slanderous op-ed pieces written about Cruz claiming Cruz forced Obama to shut down the governnent or something.

      • cynthia curran

        I follower Cruz and he was not get it. It would be Jeb Bush or Rick Perry, the Republican elite controls the party. Why do you think that Mittens who was less of the right than the other candidates won last time..

      • strayaway

        Why? Because the oligarchs pre-select our presidential candidates so it doesn’t matter who we vote for. The elite win either way. Hillary or Jeb; they win either way.

  • strayaway

    Can anyone find the passage in this bill that requires or even suggests selling any national park land or is the article’s title pretend? If states get there hands on this land, they could very well sell logs and resources like the federal government does. Wouldn’t that be terrible? Even worse, people like Harry Reid’s family couldn’t get involved with land that might turn into a profitable truck stop and Chinese solar farms in Nevada. Future Presidents, conversely, couldn’t tie up resources like Bill Clinton did when he federalized a million acres of Utah rich in low sulphur coal which would have competed with the coal produced by Clinton and Democratic contributors, the Riadys’ Lippo Group, in Indonesia. Shame, Shame on Ted Cruz.

    • poppaDavid

      If federal land is to be given to someone, how about returning it the the people who lost it to the U.S. Army?

      • strayaway

        So you are unaware of any wording in this bill that requires or even suggests selling (not giving away) any national park land? Alaska was purchased from Russia although Utah and Nevada were gained by the US Army from Mexico if that’s what you mean. Answer: I don’t want to give Utah and Nevada to Mexico.

      • poppaDavid

        No. Russia and Mexico (Spain) made claim to the land, but the owners were the native inhabitants of the land. And while the federal government of the United States purchased the land or paid restitution after conquest from Russia or Mexico, that didn’t change the real owners.

        If you don’t like federal “land grabs” then be consistent and support returning the land to the original owners.

        If you feel that the federal government received the land legitimately, then stop trying to transfer it from me and the other owners of our federal lands.

      • strayaway

        According to the National Geographic genographic project, DNA traces suggest that “native-Americans” came from Asia in at least seven different migrations with origins as as diverse as the Urals to SE Asia. Which group of them is the rightful owners? It can only be the first group using your logic. The rest are land grabbers every bit as much as were European settlers. Europeans were just another bunch of tribes. That’s a major flaw in your understanding of Native-American history.

        The Constitution lays out the delegated powers of the US government. I don’t see anything suggesting owning the majority of land in any state although land is necessary to fulfill federal functions and the District of Columbia was authorized. As previously mentioned, Nevada was set up with the federal government owning most of its land although not necessarily in perpetuity. The title of this article suggests that Cruz wants to give away national park land. I doubt that there is anything in his bill that suggests that. This article also says talks about giving away federal land. Does he really want to give it away or sell it? Big difference. If sold at market prices, land sales could pay down the federal debt so our children won’t be burdened by it. I also mentioned Harry Ried and Bill Clinton’s lucrative federal land deals. I can’t imaging states being any less corrupt.

      • poppaDavid

        If you have some real history that demonstrates who resided in Nevada, Oregon, Utah, etc. other than the people living there when Europeans arrived, please produce it. If you have some proof that earlier residents of an area didn’t die out or voluntarily vacate the land to the later residents please provide it. Otherwise, descendants of the people living on the land when the Europeans arrived have a prior claim on the land ahead of the states. Especially those states that are created by the federal government out of federal territories.

        The Cruz proposal would require the federal government to divest any land that is more than 50% of the area of the state. As the Americans of Japanese descent found out in 1942, the forced sale of their land did NOT bring them a fair value in exchange. Whether you call it a “sale” or “gift”, it is a give away.

        Does the Constitution give the federal government authority to own land? It is in the same section that gave them the authority to steal the land.

      • strayaway

        You should probably sign the deed of your house over to the tribe who lived there when Europeans arrived wherever your house is. Practicing what one preaches is always so admirable.

        Interesting that you should mention the Japanese-Americans who Roosevelt (D) deprived of land and put into ‘camps’ as prisoners.

        Yes. the Constitution authorizes the federal government to own land in the District of Columbia and for some other purposes as specified in the second last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8. Interpreting that broadly, I would imagine that includes land post offices sit on, postal roads, and modern smilies of e.g. “magazines’, and other useful buildings.

      • poppaDavid

        You neglect to identify the Constitutional authority to steal land from native Americans.

      • strayaway

        There is none although the US bought land from France, Russia, and Mexico and claimed lands after wars with England, Mexico, and Spain none of which were Indian tribes. Maybe they stole the land from Indians. Time to send some nasty notes to their embassies. Quakers bought land from Indians and Manhatten Island was also purchased from Indians. Have you ceded you property back the Indians yet to assuage your guilt? If you are still living in your parents’ basement, maybe you could send the tribes part of your allowance.

      • poppaDavid

        Wait. If there is no Constitutional authority to purchase or steal land, where is your indignation over the acquisition of Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, etc. in the first place?

        Or may we understand that you only trot out the Constitution when you want to limit a federal action you don’t like, and you ignore the Constitution when you like a federal action that has no Constitutional backing?

        That flies in the face of “strict construction” and “original intent”.

        The historical facts are that the Constitution allows the federal government to own land; the federal government acquired land without Constitutional authority; the Constitution allows the federal government to create the states of Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, etc. from acquired land; and the federal government retained some part of those states under direct federal ownership.

        Now you want the federal government to use federal resources to provide an economic benefit to a special class of people. How liberal!

      • strayaway

        Thank you David for making Sen. Cruz’ case. No, the federal government really has no Constitutionally delegated power to hold most of the land in Nevada or Alaska. The US gained land militarily in the Mexican and Spanish-American wars and bought other land e.g. Louisiana Purchase, in part, to defend against British expansionism but since it had no justification to hold onto these lands, the Louisiana Purchase land was largely sold off. What part of the Constitution, in your mind, delegated power to the US government to own over 80% of Nevada so many years after Nevada’s founding? Be specific. As far as indignation, those matters occurred long before I was around; even before all of Obama’s shortcomings could be blamed on Bush. No one was contesting that “the Constitution allows the federal government to create the states”. But if you were imaging anyone was, you would be right on that point.

        What special class of people are you referring to in your last sentence? The only class I mentioned was ‘our children’. Do you have a problem with that? Prudence demands that such land be sold at full value. Perhaps you would rather continue printing money, borrowing from China, and billing the whole mess to our children.

      • poppaDavid

        I asked for the Constitutional authority to acquire the land. You skirt the issue by changing the verb to “hold”.

        A basic principle of the free market is that a legitimate owner of property may hold or dispose of it as they wish. If the federal government was ever the legitimate owner of those lands, they may hold them as long as they wish.

        Where is the Constitutional authority for the wars of military expansion? Where is the Constitutional authority for expansion by purchase?

      • strayaway

        And I presented some to you some including a possible authority for expansion by purchase or military action. Current holdings, rather then the method of acquisition a century or two ago, is in fact, relevant to this article about Ted Cruz’ legislation. Please re-read my posts and try to stay on topic. I asked you, “What part of the Constitution, in your mind, delegated power to the US government to own over 80% of Nevada so many years after Nevada’s founding? Be specific.” (crickets?) You might want to add to your response your Constitutional basis for your belief that “If the federal government was ever the legitimate owner of those lands, they may hold them as long as they wish” which addresses the “holdings’ issue.

      • poppaDavid

        England, Spain, Russia and France were already in place on this continent. There was no American war against British expansion. You are pushing a lie there. The United States was expanding into British, Spanish, French and Russian claims as part of a claimed “Manifest Destiny”. And that action was not authorized by the Constitution. Your arguments are a restatement of the “implied powers” and “living Constitution” arguments. You are arguing that the liberal approach to understanding the Constitution is correct.

        You ask, “What part of the Constitution, in your mind, delegated power to the US government to own over 80% of Nevada so many years after Nevada’s founding?”

        Try Article IV, Section 3, #2
        2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

        Congress has the Constitutional authority to exercise discretion in the disposal of property, that includes the option to NOT dispose of that property. That means, “If the federal government was ever the legitimate owner of those lands, they may hold them as long as they wish”.

        If Congress continues to hold 80% of Nevada, I say “more power to them”. Nevada doesn’t need more state land. The 20% of Nevada in private hands is larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island combined. Those states have 14 million residents, while Nevada has 2.7 million.

      • MJRinPA

        I believe that part of the stipulations in Nevada becoming a state involved transferring a large portion of the land to the Federal government.

  • Michael Bean

    Is it actually possible for this asshole to become even less likable?

  • Tx Grandma

    It’s about stopping the federal government from taking control of more and more land. Read something that is not on a progressive website. Learn the whole story. The government has been seizing land under the guise of saving a snail or mouse. Hope none of you own ranch or farm land. Many farms and ranches, that have been in families since the beginning of this country, are losing their land. As more ranches and farms are taken or their ability to provide for their families are restricted, the prices of everything goes up for everyone.

    • Jamroast

      Well cite some sources and post some examples.

  • sanity

    He looks like Rodney Dangerfield after his fifth martini.

  • Sean Smith

    FYI. The land never belonged to the states. It’s always been owned by the feds. If this passed it wouldn’t be given anything back to them, but rather giving them a giant gift.

  • jimv1983

    I agree with much of this article but the author is stupid. Ted Cruz can’t run for president because he wasn’t born in America. He was born in Canada.

  • Mike Benefield

    This has been the GOP plan all along.

  • Ronald Kapeller

    F U Libtards. Government teat suckers.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      keep crying and praise jeeeeeeeesus

  • Marcia Smith Preusser

    This a**hole is just taking up valuable space here. What bu**shit!

  • Thisstuffmakesmecrazy

    Ted Cruz is an embarrassing douche. I’m from Texas, and he embarrasses me greatly.

  • Thisstuffmakesmecrazy

    I’d love for Cruz to run. He’d splinter the GOP like nobody else could. Although, he could do well enough to win the nomination. Then he’d lose the general election. Badly.

  • Mike

    Funny how this got off of the land issue.

  • People Corporation

    Good, but don’t try to sell what they don’t own. They never bought the land from the states, as prescribed by the constitution. Surrender it and get out.

  • Mikey

    “If this amendment passed, the burden of maintaining these lands would then fall to the state’s taxpayers”

    Right… because taxpayers don’t already pay for maintaining these lands. It’s totally out of the question for the federal government to kick that money back to the taxpayers. Naah, we’ll just have to pay for it twice.

    Economically illiterate much?

  • Dick_Gosinya

    The list of states with over 50% Federal control of lands doesn’t include DOD and DOE controlled land. People in the state have no say over its use, instead some cubicle dweller in DC make all the decisions. And, instead of that percentage diminishing over time, it’s gotten worse and worse.

  • Lee Heberlein

    Whaaa whaaaa whaaaa. It belongs to the states you fools, give it back to them. whaaa whaaa whaaaa.

  • NovelDog

    If he is for this I want Trump to look for another VP. If he is that stupid then we need someone else who cares about preserving our lands and our wildlife.

  • NovelDog

    I don’t care if he is a citizen or not…if he does not care about our wild life, or our forest, then we don’t need him helping to run our country.

  • Cozyrn

    I am calling bullchit on this piece. Untrue

  • Mike_Travis

    You people are proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. I have never seen so much insanity in one place at the same time.

  • dogdiedonce

    Welfare Rancher????? Only a left wing hack would write garbage like this!

  • Debra Shawver

    Well the ONLY land the feds are allowed by the Constitution to own are the 10 sq miles around DC and that land that is needed for ports and forts…and national Park is NOT and never will be a port or fort…in this both Trump and Cruz are correct…that land needs to be turned back over to the states. Period!