That Which Must Not be Named

4/2/2013

He Who Must Not be Named

Say the name, "Agenda 21" and a shocked pall falls over the room. Environmental collectivists glare menacingly, and cast a spell conjuring up incantations about tinfoil hats. Conservatives shrink in fear. Boo! Agenda 21? It doesn't exist! Stop talking about it, you... you foolish conspiracy theorists! What Agenda 21...? Oh - the 21st Century Agenda. Gotta stay current on the nomenclature.

Guess which sorcerer invoked "That Which Must Not be Named" by name yesterday? That's right, the headmaster of the Forbidden Forests, Ken Salazar apparated yesterday into Anacortes, which isn’t even in the San Juans (but no matter, those with federal powers conjured the illusion). With a magic wand, the presidential pen, these islands have been declared a national monument, an unusual new brand of territory with special magical places and waters that must be protected from Muggles, you know. Click here, if you dare! Just make sure you have practiced your defenses against the dark arts.

The Magic New Map (with all of Lummi Island)

The little people can thank "conservative" councilman Sam Crawford and Whatcom County Council for adding their blessings to this, back in 2011. WE can't imagine this was conjured-up to have no affect. What that will be, we shall see in time.

9 Comments

Greg Brown

4/2/2013 08:01:29 am

Wow, change the name and continue on. I wish I could have been at the presentation, but I was busy watching paint dry. Thanks to all who went to witness, and I assume object to, the "taking" as much as was possible. The "muggles" need to wake up soon or the "sorcerers" will have all of the land in their control while continuing to usurp our rights with their smoke and mirrors magical illusions. We need people in government who will protect the people and speak the truth! We need less government1

Comrade X

4/3/2013 06:37:27 am

I don't know which are worst; the progressives on our council or the RINO's.

childofww2

4/9/2013 01:20:44 am

Salazar's dying act as an unelected govt. czar, and the adoring sheep went happily along with yet aother land grab.

Ma Bear

4/29/2013 07:04:05 pm

Maybe it should be spelled Salaczar

Conner Helms

4/29/2013 01:22:06 pm

I appreciate the metaphor, but I would prefer a clearer condemnation of this act. A few questions: this new establishment only effects land that is already owned by the government, correct? It does not steal and appropriate private property or effect native lands? It does not effect legal recreational practices that would allow us to appreciate the diversity but instead protects the land and makes it impossible for corporations to develop and destroy it? Are you against the National Parks system as well? Without understanding your stance its impossible for me to determine if I agree or disagree.

HonestAbby

4/29/2013 02:58:40 pm

(a) The land was productive land, active forestry that contributed to the public purse. (b) This reversed the cash-flow, it will be a burden. (c) As an active forest, it did no environmental harm. (d) The public could already use the forest for recreation, in more ways. (e) Why do you think corporations could have developed or destroyed it? (f) The writer may comment on the National Park System, but as a fellow reader, I'm curious - what do you mean when you write "allow us to appreciate the diversity"? Appreciate the 'diversity' of what?

4/29/2013 03:56:23 pm

(a) Which "profitable" active forestry are you referring to? My question is if the government is attempting to buy/reserve all the lands within the green boundaries of the map(?!) Or if instead the claims within the presidents signing statement, that, "the establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights," is relevant and accurate. The Presidents statement says that it will make "lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be the San Juan Islands National Monument." It will only change the status of lands already under the dominion of government (parks and reserves). Are you saying that it is the state land (which is now becoming federal land) that brings money to the public purse? (b) I don't believe it will create a cash burden (not more than it is now, and many ecological protection programs are necessary, however some are wasteful). (c,d) as a Federal monument and forest it will do no environmental harm. the public will have the same amount of access. (e) I don't necessarily believe corporations could develop or destroy it, however the state could have sold the land, now they cannot because its a national monument. Anyways, I am asking why the monument status is such a bad thing. Is it possible that it could serve as beneficial precaution from further harm against an ecosystem that relies upon a delicate balance? (f) The diversity I am referring to is visible the moment you set foot in the San Juans and its very easy to appreciate. I believe some precaution and a lot of common sense could be very beneficial. I bet the author is correct and I bet that there are better, more $ efficient ways to protect what is valuable, enlighten me.

4/29/2013 05:59:31 pm

I apologize. My response was related to the reconveyance of DNR land in Whatcom County where more than 8 thousand acres of productive forest land is being turned into a park. But the situation has similar implications

San Juan was a free county like any other, where the bits of land held by the government didn't dominate the lives of residents. But without question this designation throws a "net of protection" (read federal oversight) over the citizens. The freedom of those living on the San Juans will be affected deeply. Research what's happened in some other areas
(copy this link to your browser)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/510186

Liberty of residents in other places where the National Park Service has taken over (like the Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio and in Alaska) has diminished. To cite a dissertation about this problem, "In a 2005 article in the Pacific Historical Review, geographers Lary Dilsaver and William Wyckoff observed that national parks function much like a nation-state."

Some believe that "protection" like this is a good thing, but I think it smacks of "tyranny of the majority." I don't think the founders would have thought highly of this kind of dominion.

4/30/2013 02:14:57 am

Thank you, I will look into that.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

That Which Must Not be Named

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Archives