ALERT HR Bill 1505 allows for DHS takeover of seashores and coastal areas

China Connection

TB Fanatic
There goes the fishing.

..........................................................

HR Bill 1505 allows for DHS takeover of seashores and coastal areas
July 20, 2011 Irene

http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index....-dhs-takeover-of-seashores-and-coastal-areas/

A new house bill wants to allow the Department of Homeland Security to have jurisdiction over all federal lands on national seashores and coastal areas.

HR Bill 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up “monitoring equipment” in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.

The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.

The bill is not without opposition. Congressman William Keating , who also sits on the House committee for Homeland Security, is concerned about the language in the bill as it appears to allow for outright destruction of parts of the United States as long as the DHS claims that there is some sort of security risk. There are also massive environmental and legislative problems to be taken into consideration as well.

…the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations,” including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.

Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.

This is far too sweeping legislation. It essentially allows the DHS to do whatever it wants, including destroying habitats and coastlines, all in the name of security. There would be no oversight and no recourse for anyone or anything in the affected areas.

When is this overreaching of government going to be enough? Would you like to visit any of the places named above if they were swarming with armed military, checkpoints, and “random” stops, especially if you had no recourse to complain about them? What are the “other purposes” in this bill and just how far will it be stretched to fit the mission of the DHS as it changes day to day? We need to stop this bill while it’s still in committee. Once it becomes a law, these former parks and seashores will no longer be a place for a family to enjoy a weekend together. It will be a militarized border, questionable to no one.
 

dstraito

TB Fanatic
These power grabs are leading us to a very bad place. The FED is already not enforcing our borders and making wrong arbitrary decisions about national security. Why would we want to allow more control to a Federal agency that thinks white middle aged people are the biggest terrorist threats?

It is time to shut down this government expansion or be subjugated to it.
 

L.A.B.

Goodness before greatness.
Beaches and Parks are for picnics and familys and conventional WW-II style beach-heads. .40 caliber pistols serve no legitimate purpose in any of those enviroments. I would rather see DHS focusing on the Shipping and Commercial Air Ports and Nation-Border Rail Hub entry points.

DHS- We prefer that you pay attention to these threats from their point of origin, prior to their ability to breech our air space. The Navy and Coast Guard will run point scanning the coastal horizon, you can continue scanning containers. Let's place the proper assets where they MAKE THE MOST SENSE!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...1ozWCg&usg=AFQjCNFCnb5KAfsWBJdIrWce9TZv5Xv8tw

Heads uP!
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I actually understand why this legislation is under consideration. Remember back when the border fence was proposed? The tree-huggers all sued for "environmental damage" and IIRC, they won. That being said, DHS would never, ever, build that fence. But I do understand what this is about.
 
Unfortunately whenever I hear DHS I think of the pervs at TSA but the reality is the Border Patrol is an agency of DHS. Trust me if you give any wiggle room to allow a lawyer to file an injunction our borders will remain as porous as a sieve.
 

tiger13

Veteran Member
Who wrote this bill? Shoot them! then hang their f#cking carcass to rot. There is no way in hell anyone one should get that much power over that much of the country to destroy at will. screw them. Again shoot the bastard that came up with the idea of that dam stupid ass bill, and his whole dam spawn to go with him also so as to wipe out any chance of future dumb ass ideas ever coming from his heirs in the future.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
I actually understand why this legislation is under consideration. Remember back when the border fence was proposed? The tree-huggers all sued for "environmental damage" and IIRC, they won. That being said, DHS would never, ever, build that fence. But I do understand what this is about.

Yea, but is that rule #47 and way down on the list of reasons why they want this?
 
Top