Jewell Bashes Trump for Monument Review

Written in response to Deseret News

 7/26 news article quoting former secretary Jewell:

A very telling statement by Sally Jewell, "If you are not at the table, you are on the menu." 

Yes, Utah has been on the environmental menu for years, with millions of acres of "public" land being locked up by divisive means and purposes, and it's not to make America Great Again. Quite the contrary, public lands in dozens of states have been on the menu, for decades, until the working man, especially rural Americans have been pushed out of the picture, discredited, and told that endangered species are more important than their lives and their livelihood. 

If state's rights mean anything in this country anymore, we must give credence, and legality to elected officials, not to the clamoring, minions following extremist environmental foundations funded by Soros, Wyss, Bonderman, and board members of the Conservation Land Foundation. They are the creators of a menu which includes global manipulation, personal gain, and weakening of Constitutional rights. There's much more at stake than Monuments. 

Like Patrick Henry, "I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery" (in the form of socialism.)  "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." Hooray, for Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, W. Virginia, Montana, and other states who are fighting such encroachments legally, and legislatively. Monuments are not about protection, they are about power and weakening America.

  Janet Wilcox

Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition a Non-governmental Organization with no Jurisdiction

The San Juan County Commission approved a resolution on October 4 regarding the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition proposal to create the Bears Ears National Monument. The county resolution states that the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition is a non-governmental organization that has no jurisdiction over land-use planning activities in San Juan County.

The county resolution outlines several key points that Commissioners say are roadblocks to the creation of the proposed national monument. The resolution states that a number of property rights exist in the proposed monument that do not meet the definition of public lands, including 43 grazing allotments, 661 water-right infrastructure, 151,000 acres of state trust land, 18,000 acres of private property, and hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure which are granted a RS2477 right-of-way.

The resolution adds that the proposal violates at least 18 established planning efforts, including a Memorandum of Agreement with the Navajo Nation. The resolution states that the coalition’s assertion of “rampant looting” conflicts with reports of local and federal law enforcement agencies.

In summary, the county resolution states that the proposal does not meet the “quality, utility, objectivity and integrity standards that are required of federal agencies for decision making.” It asks that the federal government follow existing federal law, which rules out an arbitrary and unilateral designation of public lands.

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition has asked President Barack Obama to create the Bears Ears National Monument using the Antiquities Act.
The proposed monument could be as large as 1.9 million acres, or 38 percent of the entire landmass of San Juan County. The resolution was approved unanimously by the Commissioners. It is part of a report on the proposed monument that was created by consultants at Stillwater Technical Solutions.

The report outlines procedural requirements, governmental prerogatives, and the required statutory process that would be required for the designation.
The county will present the report to elected federal officials in Salt Lake City on October 10 and to Department of the Interior officials in Washington, DC on October 12.

Bear Ears Benefit Dinner & State's Rights Program Sept. 17

What to expect to learn at the Bill Howell Program

This is the chance to learn how to incorporate reason, and logic into our fight for land. Emotions are not sufficient to win battles. This is a summary of what to expect on the 17th. From Bill Howell: "The core object of this approach is to demonstrate to the audience that regardless of what the feds may call a given parcel of land, the obligation for disposal remains in place; and, since disposal is expressly delegated under the Constitution, disposal is the "supreme law of the land."

Bill Howell: "I plan to begin with a few very brief remarks about monument designation, Bear's Ears. Very brief because, as you may know, I put little stock in the idea of protesting or even commenting on current actions of the feds including monument designations, RMP's, travel management plans, and etc. I consider these "opportunities for input " as "balm for the masses." In my mind, these "opportunities" serve only to validate federal dominion and supremacy. An occasional concession to local interest does not alter this fact. I have refused to play the game of the four C's for decades now. In my view, the only fight worth fighting is that which demands divestiture. Divestiture "cures" all the other "evils." For these reasons, I see no need to expend much time on the monument or potential monument process.

1. I think it is worthwhile to discuss briefly how to think (not what to think) about the text of the Constitution since this instrument is the foundation upon which the federal role regarding public lands is based.

2. Since the Property Clause is at the center of this issue, I introduce the clause early and will return to it later in the presentation.

3. Legislative history of the Property Clause. The legislative history of any statute is integral to an understanding of the laws."

Idahoan Gives Advice on State's Rights in Land Management.

Those who support the Transfer of Public Lands should understand a few basic facts:

1. In order to be truly sovereign states, each state must manage the lands within their own boundaries. 
2. The transfer of these lands has already been promised to each state in their enabling act.
3. States have been shown, over and over again, to manage their public lands better than the federal government.
4. Those who live in and rely on the lands know best how to manage them.

In his recent article in the Post Register, Orson Johnson said it beautifully.

In his article, Johnson explains how anti-hunting sentiment could lead to anti-hunting laws on a federal level if lands remain under federal government control:

According to my research, about 5 percent to 6 percent of the U.S. hunting age population actually hunts wild game (compared to 16 percent in Idaho). Some 16 percent of the U.S. population is opposed to hunting. The rest are neither strongly for nor against hunting. In our increasingly urbanized society the percentage of hunters will likely continue to diminish and non-hunters and anti-hunters will likely increase.

A number of animal rights and anti-hunting organizations are more than willing to restrict or ban hunting altogether. They have a much better chance of accomplishing their goals on the federal level than on the state level. In some cases, hunting and other activities have already been restricted by the endangered species act, the clean water act or by federal agencies. The power of a very vocal minority, whether you agree with their agenda or not, has increasingly shown that it can sometimes impose its will on the majority. Anti-hunting laws have little chance of being enacted in a state like Idaho. But they could be imposed on the federal level. In that case the states would have little chance of overturning those regulations.

Johnson goes on to explain how the federal government could very likely succeed in enforcing such restrictions:

The most likely scenario is by fiat from one of the increasingly powerful federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, or the United States Forest Service. Federal courts also sometimes “enact” legislation from the bench. These forms of legislation continue to take decision making power away from state and local governments. This trend seems likely to continue.

Johnson is absolutely correct. More and more we see our Constitutional rights taken away as elected officials forget the checks and balances that were carefully crafted by our Founders. Those checks and balances are not only between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government, but even more importantly, between the federal government, whose powers are intended to be "few and defined", and the states, whose powers encompass everything not explicitly given to the federal government by the people. 

We will give the final word to Mr. Johnson, who understands that, though states are prepared to financially manage their own lands, there is far more than economics to consider when it comes to who should be managing the lands within your state.

It has been said with some justification that the states do not have the resources to manage the huge acreages that the federal government owns in most of the western states. But with our staggering and rapidly growing federal debt, it may not be long before the federal government will no longer have the resources to manage these lands either. In any case, even inadequate management by the state may eventually be preferable to the restrictions of an increasingly powerful and autocratic federal government.

---

Johnson was raised in Idaho Falls. He is a fourth generation Idahoan.