December 14, 2019

Maine’s National Monument Proposal: Pingree Lies, Quimby to Give Government Land She Doesn’t Own

*Scroll Down for an Update*

A brief news item in the Portland Press Herald yesterday said that U.S. House of Representative official from Maine, Chellie Pingree, has sent President Obama a letter asking him to support a fascist and dictatorial maneuver to create, through Executive Order, a National Monument in Maine on land, not all of which is owned by Roxanne Quimby, the founder of Burt’s Bees and supporter of double standards, in which as a large capitalist landowner, works to make sure no others share in land ownership or capitalism.

On this news article, I have two questions and/or comments.

First, Quimby is asking that Obama declare 87,500 acres of land in Maine for a National Monument. She does not own 87,500 acres and yet she is giving it to Obama. How can that happen?

Second, Rep. Chellie Pingree, according to this article, in her letter to Obama in support of the monument designation, wrote that, “most people in the region and throughout the state” support a national monument designation. Someone needs to call Pingree out on this and seek substantiation of that claim. Several meetings held in the “region” have overwhelmingly been against a park or a monument.

But this kind of behavior by a corrupt, nasty, dirty rotten politician (they all are the same) has become commonplace and evidently an accepted way of life in politics.

What a disgrace!

People fail to recognize the noose they make for themselves.

*Update* – June 1, 2016 10:30 a.m.

In the article linked-to above, after reading over the comments left by readers, I’m really not convinced that many, if any, readers actually understand what the designation of National Monument, National Park, etc. means. It is next to impossible to be specific about any land controlled by the Federal Government until after it has happened.

Many readers left comments stating that it shouldn’t matter about the state or federal governments accepting land, after all, it’s a gift. While that may be true, some even are of the impression that a landowner can specify covenants and restrictions for use of the land. Good luck with that pipe dream.

Aside from all the good and bad that everyone is eager to rave about this monument proposal, before making an informed decision, should understand that once any land comes under complete control of the government, restrictions are immediately put into place. No government land is free of limitations and restrictions. Think about it.

We do not know, nor will be find out, about any plans, changes, limitations or restrictions until after the fact…usually. That’s how government works.

As an example of our ignorance about land designations and the Federal Government, consider land that the Feds have deemed “Wilderness.” What does that mean? Does it mean as in the purist sense? Is it value laden and under whose “values” are regulations devised? Do the Feds control completely access to and use of the land by the public?

Perhaps this link will help anyone who actually cares, understand that once land is in the hands of government, there is very little that the citizens, including those so eager to accept a gift of land, can do about it.

So long as the ignorant masses blindly believe a gift of land, to be controlled by government, is always a good thing, the practice of giving power to a president to take that land as a national monument, without Congressional approval or voter oversight, will continue. We don’t have much say in how the land should be used, and don’t believe for a minute that any government is interested in our concerns.

Share