Receiving a letter from the Trust For Public Lands, an apparent Constitutional Conservative in my family angrily expressed how she agrees with the Trust For Public Lands about the fact that—as she learned—Congress voted to allow the federal government to alleviate some of the national debt sell some public lands back to the states. She, in other words, agrees with the TFPL that the public lands should stay with the federal government and not be used for mining, forestry work, or other environment-affecting work.
As I told her, that she's upset mad that a Republican Congress did the following baffles me:
- Return natural resources to the U.S.—after all, we've had to import because of not being allowed to mine, use lumber, frack, etc.. By the way, she complains when houses are left abandoned all while she excoriates Congress for leaving public land unabandoned—what irony!
- Create and recreate jobs in the U.S.—people such as aspiring and out-of-work miners, carpenters, environmental consultants, and professional foresters will be able to have jobs and careers!
- Create and recreate volunteer opportunities for, for example, retirees, stay-at-home parents, students and interns, and those whom are unable to work but can volunteer—for example, a widowed retiree who's living with her homeschooling daughter can go on tree-replanting volunteer trips with her daughter and granddaughter when the granddaughter has to go on school trips. After all, the widowed retiree doesn't want to just languish inside the house all day—she wants to help her granddaughter become a Sierra Club or Conservation International intern-to-be-employee.
In conclusion, I find myself baffled that an apparent Constitutional conservative disparages Congress for giving public land back to the states and creating opportunities for the aspiring and current American workforce and volunteerforce.
.gif)
