I told you Romney wants to take over the country and sell it off piece by piece just the way he has in any other hostile takeover. The Arizona GOP is just getting started early. Next the great selloff of the USA.

We all know that if AZ get control of the GC and other federal lands, it will be sold to the highest bidder. This is just another way of fleecing the people of AZ. I say let them have it and pull all federal support for those lands they are taking back.

I wonder if the author of this piece of legislative garbage is Romney's adviser on the environment.

I suppose they want to keep all the federal money as they kick the federal government out of the state? I take it their senators and representatives will not stop vying for federal dollars? Also, how can I buy a canyon? No one told me that was on the menu.

The way they want this country to look we will have to change the name of this country to The States of America.

And they should change the name of Tea Party to the Disunity party as they have fostered little but division since organizing.

The United States should secede Arizona from this Nation or else they spoil the entire lot.

It will, however, continue to corrupt our children.

To stop all this nonsense, we should make sure NO state gets more $$$ from the govt than they put in. Then the citizens of those states would see how there politicians are phuking them. i jsu love Arizona saying we dont have any state taxes, and when I drive thru the state on there old 1950s pot holed Roads, I think the sun has finally gotten to these people

tea baggers want to mine uranium at the grand canyon and put drinking water at risks for four surrounding states, including southern california, nevada, arizona and utah. this is about control. vote democrat across the board this election, let's start getting these evil, ignorant minded people who hide behind the constitution, but are ruining it with hate, bullying and manipulation. time to send a powerful message. get out and vote.

if romney gets in, first thing tea baggers will do is eliminate minimum wage, so romney can compete with china for manufacturing, they'll be paying american workers $1.00 an hour for jobs. what a plan.

There are some real issues that have brought this on. You are only looking at it by party. What about the people of AZ who are being hurt by govt. decisions? For example: There was damage to the pipelinethat brings water to Tombstone. The Fed govt. will not allow the pipeline to be repaired with heavy equipment, so Tombstone is quite short on water. It has been proven Tombstone has a right to enter the area (on govt. land) yet they are only allowed to use shovels and horses to make repairs. I think this vote is in response to issues like this. Tombstone shouldn't have to sue to get the water pipeline repaired.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/tombstone-water-fight/index.html

should states be using voting machines that are controlled by a company that romney's son runs? like those in ohio?

IndependentinSD - When did Arizona say it does not have taxes? We have income tax, (high) sales tax, property tax, automobile tax, we tax just about everything. Where do you get your information from? And our roads are actually quite well taken care of. Certainly far better than the roads in the Northeast, where I used to live.

Are you kidding me? The interstates in Arizona are a total mess and falling apart. I drove through on my way to Las Vegas and I was dodging potholes that could swallow a small car. Of all the states I drove through Arizona highways were the absolute worst.

Holy Crap!...what a bunch of whining dribble. Romney has nothing to do with this and the only reason Obama has anything to do with this because he's the President. But everybody has their panties in a wad over nothing. Arizona does not have the Constitutional muster to get this past the courts. It would be similar to Arizona announcing it was seceding from the union (which can't).

So all of you screaming whiners can relax and ligthen up. If Arizona wants to waste its resources on something silly like this it's their choice, but it ain't going nowhere. This much to do about nothing.

WTF, we want it, therefore we feel it should be ours?

Hey AZ Republicans, this was Indian land seized fair and square by Federal Troops. What makes you think you have any right to it?

Knowing how my fine State of Arizona works - they will ask for Federal funds to fight the Feds in court.

Federal road ways in Arizona - some of the best in the country, local city and State road ways - some of the worst in the country. All you have to do is look at what is already here to figure out what would happen to the Grand Canyon if Arizona ruins runs it.

Back in the early 1860s, some Southern states tried to take over federal lands. I recall that it didn't go very well. Now the Arizona GOP are trying again, this time to perpetrate a "legitimate rape" of our shared natural resources. I doubt we'll let them either succeed or secede, but it probably won't cost us 600,000+ dead this time.

@reeblite-389524

if romney gets in, first thing tea baggers will do is eliminate minimum wage, so romney can compete with china for manufacturing, they'll be paying american workers $1.00 an hour for jobs. what a plan.

Less than 5% of the workforce earn min wage or less. So if the min wage prevents us from making a buck an hour why don't you explain to all of us why these companies don't pay people as little as possible now?? Anyone??

The Grand Canyon should belong to the NATIVE AMERICANS. The barren wasteland all around the Grand Canyon was giving to the Native Americans but the Federal Government held onto the Grand Canyon because it was a money maker.

The problem with any state taking over federal lands is the states can't afford it. Where I live, the feds own most of the forest land which is a huge % of our state. They do a crappy job of taking care of the land but we can't afford to do any better so we're screwed.

CoRavens; be more specific, just exactly what do you think President Obama has given away? And what won't Mitt Romney give away? He'd sell us to China.

While I doubt an argument could be made for unconstitutionality (individual states have the right to govern their land as they see fit), I am very concerned for the ability to fund this particular proposition. I was in AZ recently on a road trip with my family, and they closed most of the rest areas along long stretches of freeway. My family and I were told it was because the state wanted to encourage people to do business in the highway towns, cities, et al. Most people suspected that it was because AZ couldn't fund the personnel and resources to get out there and maintain these rest stops appropriately.

I agree this is a power play by Republicans, but any unconsitutional argument will be thrown out by any half-witted judge. And what exactly do they hope to do with this land they are claiming? Expand businesses? What is in AZ that suggests a breeding ground for businesses?

Oh and Sandy #1.15, I don't know where you were drivin, but the highways were very well maintained while we were goin through.

I smell Big Oil Texas behind this BS attempt. And you know what? If AZ does this, then the Mexicans from whom the states of TX and AZ were formed should be able to grab back the land from AZ and TX. These two states comprise the biggest bunch of dumbasses in the country. Go ahead AZ...take your Grand Canyon. Let Texas Big Oil rip it apart and destroy it so your double assed state residents with all that moolah can live large...and then when you need help to defend your state from Mexico...Don't you dare come looking for help from any other state.

And the minute AZ pulls this BS...my state will declare our coastal beaches off limits to jackass AZ Republicans who visit here. Nothing like Bullies of the right wing Republican party to drum up a civil war they will lose yet again.

I do not support this measure! I am a conservative and a resident of Arizona to boot.

Jobs, economy, etc........get rid of the damn illegal leaches this state and country are supporting.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to realize just how much of a burden the illegals are.

Less than 5% of the workforce earn min wage or less. So if the min wage prevents us from making a buck an hour why don't you explain to all of us why these companies don't pay people as little as possible now?? Anyone??

The reason that many companies pay their workers more than minimum wage is to stay competitive. For example, If minimum hourly wage in your state is $7.75 and a store like Target pays their workers $8.50, people are more likely to work there than at a Walmart nearby that pays their workers minimum wage. If minimum wage was $1.00/hour, suddenly Target only needs to pay their workers $1.10 to keep their wages competitive. Minimum wage mainly protects unskilled workers. Also, even if only 5% of the workforce earns minimum wage, I'd bet the percentage that earns more than minimum wage but less than or equal to 10% more (like $8.50 compared to the minimum wage of $7.75) is a lot higher.

Why do the the Sane Citizens of Arizonia put up with Joe and Brewer. I refuse to believe that the majority of the Arizona Political landscape are this stupid.

Vote all the dummies out of office and start over with people who have a little common sense. Maybe it is the Sun baking the Brains of these idiots.

Hey dirt,, did you even read the above article. It has nothing to do with illegals,, aliens or otherwise.

Hey,, if these guys in AZ are dumb enough to go for it,, what the hell,, let them. Even if they could get it past the supreme court,, they would still be losing money on the deal,,, except for the three guys in the state who are rich enough to profit from it.

Another example of republicans using the argument against
big government to rape and pillage our country of its resources and wealth.
Republican politicians, like Romeny, aren't against big government for the good
of our country, just the good of their pocket books. Republicans point to
Thomas Jefferson who was against a large federal government. The problem is
Jefferson was against a large federal government to avoid tyranny, the Republicans
want to dismantle the federal government in order to privatize everything so
they can make money off of everything. They want to get rid of the department
of education and replace it with a for profit system. They want to dismantle
the EPA so they are free to destroy our air and water for the sake of their
bank accounts. Something’s, like education and protecting our public lands,
shouldn't be done for profit. Some things are more important than money. As a
native Arizonan I have voted against this measure and hope others will as well.
What kind or country will this be if the most beautiful environmental
landscapes are sold off to the highest bidder and lost for all future generations?
It's disgusting!

ewent

and then when you need help to defend your state from Mexico...Don't you dare come looking for help from any other state

The Feds have already taken away their rite to defend itself from Mexico

The federal government will just borrow money from China to fund the parks. Don't worry China will take care of us. They have already sent teachers over here to teach our children. Somebody has to.

Typical wacky tea party nonsense.

Follow the money.....see who is backing this, I see hydroelectric dams, filling in the grandcanyon and land developement...AND want to bet who's going to snatch up all the mineral/oil leases in Arizonia?? Will this also take the Indian lands away?

I agree with 11B2EB4. We stole this country fair and square from those no good Indians that worshipped pagan gods when we know our christian God and values are the real ones. We massacred them Indians for this land that we had a right to steal. And now these Arizonians want to steal it from us.........Send in the Federal Army again and kill them Indians, I mean Arizonians. Them no good people that want to steal. Watch out for them Martians too, they eh coming.

Nothing like Bullies of the right wing Republican party to drum up a civil war they will lose yet again.

Wow all this time I thought Lincoln won that war. Thanks Ewent for setting history straight

Sandy, Missouri . . . . first of all, your comment comparing republicans to pedophiles shows a complete lack of class. Second, you think a 200 mile trip on Interstate 40 represents an entire state of roadwork. That is called a hasty generalization, and it shows ignorance. I get the impression you are a heavy set bleach blond democratic sound bite.

Maybe some should look at who generates wealth. The government it is known is not a good generator of wealth. It is inefficient. Bush and Obama were alike in that they both exploded the deficit.

I always thought that Arizona was reasonable but in the last few years they are the Wiley E Coyote of the USA.

This issue borders on a vote for secession and in some ways it might be in the best interests of the US to let them leave. Between the TEAparty and the social conservatives of the GOP they have gone full stupid and asking for a double of top-self insanity at the bar.

Here is the thing, The Federal government owns the land from sea to shining sea.. The States are just segmented entities inside its borders.. People think they own land just because they paid money and have a deed that declares ownership.. The truth is that you pay rent in the form of property taxes and that rent is collected by the County and State.. They in turn maintain the local bureaucracy the Federal government needs to maintain control over the larger slice of the pie the income tax from the economy.. Fail to pay you property tax/rent and you land lord will evict you and sell your property to the next renter like an NFL personal seat license.. So the joke is on all of us.......

The question is who can manage the land more efficiently? I'd put my money on Arizona.

As an Arizonan, it is an AWFUL idea to give federal lands over to the unhinged politicians in this state. They most certainly would be selling it off to the highest bidder, no doubt. They have been pushing to open the Grand Canyon up to Uranium mining for some time now, the native Americans have been fighting that and the Federal Government has been helping them to protect it over that time. Numerous studies have been done over the years that tell us that the Grand Canyon is a very fragile eco-system, and mining there would seriously endanger that habitat by polluting the Colorado river, which is where we get a good bit of our water too! Not to mention, whenever the GOP in this state starts running out of money, the first thing they decide to cut are funds for upkeep and maintenance of rest stops and state parks. There have been quite a few nice state parks here that fell into disrepair and can no longer be used, some were completely closed. Yet our state government seems to find tens of millions a year to defend Joe Arpaio and the MCSO stupid antics in the courts....priorities I guess. Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave right now to see what the Republicans in this state are trying to do with this measure. Here's hoping enough people here are smart enough to understand what allowing this to happen would mean.

My wife and I voted against this yesterday by mail in ballot.

@ Sandy, I am a Liberal, and while I agree with you that handing the federal lands in this state over to the politicians in this state is a terrible idea, the comment about the roads here is crazy! I am a transplant from Pennsylvania, and compared to highways in that state (I-95, state route 202, 475, etc.) ALL of the roadways here in AZ are a dream! I have traveled the stretch of road you mention more than a few times now, and I think your nuts if you believe that.

GoRavens 1.23, my appologies. I meant to direct my remark to Barracuda 1.24.

It's a good thing neither of Arizona's two astronauts were on any Apollo missions, otherwise the state would probably be claiming the Moon as well.

@ewent

I smell Big Oil Texas behind this BS attempt.

Gee, there's a shock. Have you ever passed on the opportunity to insert "big oil" into the conversation so you can bitch about it?

Though I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, the "constitutional" issue is an interesting one. Technically, it's unconstitutional for the federal government to control state lands. The U.S. Constitution specifically lays out what powers the federal government does and does not have. Any powers not expressly granted to the federal govt. by the Constitution, belong to the states.

The federal government is expressly given the following powers:

The powers given to the states are as follows:

It does seem as though the federal govt. is not granted the right to take and control state lands, and that parks would appear to more closely fall under those powers granted to the states.

Like I said, though, I'm not sure that individual states would necessarily do any better with the land than the federal govt. Of course this might also open another "can of worms" with Native Americans and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which provided that unused federal land should return to the native people.

I am amazed at the astounding low levels the liberals stoop too, to criticize and pass uninformed, unethical judgements. You don't live in our state but yet you know everything that goes on here. And you have no shame at belittling or berating what our state elected officials are trying to accomplish. Basically, the Federal Gov't has claimed almost half our state under federal reserves. And we have a vast state, and the Federal Gov't Regulators have put a strangelhold on our mineral reserves. These reserves are right next to existing open mines, logging that prevents fire hazards, and current drilling. And yes that includes a mine near the Grand Canyon, that supplies uranium to nuclear power plants. Many thousands of people live and work near these mines, and without the Federal Gov't loosening their restrictions. These familys will loose their jobs and livelyhood. Its not like we want to claim the whole entire Grand Canyon, it is only like 1/1000th part of it to extract the minerals that exist in our state. The general public would never even notice, because it is a vast wilderness, and familys can continue to survive. But Obama and his environmental supporters want to control everything and evict these honest hard working Americans out of their jobs. But what the hey! in South Americans they are more than willing and happy to take American jobs, because they don't have to be strictly regulated by Obama and his extremist enviromentalists. But then again, that is Obamas and his liberal media game plan, to put the blame on someone else, with half truths and outright lies. For the continue loss of American jobs and slow economic growth! And most of these people have to end up on government deficit spending entitlement programs. WAKE UP AMERICA, don't be brainwashed by the constant barrage of immature liberal schoolyard bullying!

CHUDD

Stick to being retired and stop tryting to hurt honest hardworking folks in this state. If it were up to your selfish retired behind the whole state shold be turned into a federal park reserve for your entertainment. And there is already a urainium mine that already exists near the Grand Canyon, and their are only a few Indians and a mass amount of envrironmentalist blocking the mines expansion. I am sure, you enjoy employing uninsured, low pay illegal immigrants to do your yard work. You don't like to hire a legal citizen, because it would be too costly for your retired fixed income behind. Again lies and half truths are what your all about!

@ RobGC, what in the hell led you to believe I was retied? Far from it! You have no idea who I am, and your assumptions are beyond stupid. I am an avid outdoors-man however, and just spent two weeks on vacation in the Grand Canyon park with my immediate and extended family.....and I do all my own yard work, moron. Your post is ridiculous, and yes, there is a mining operation NEAR the Grand Canyon, not IN the canyon or near the Colorado River! Typical stupid Tea Partier type post though, sticking illegal immigration into an issue about federal lands and the possible selling off of land in one of the SEVEN NATURAL WONDERS OF THE WORLD! I mean, how do you turn this topic into a rant about immigration??? Oh, and not to mention, we get a lot of our water here in AZ from the Colorado, you dolt! Yeah, lets see if we can contaminate that now, I mean, there's plenty of water for us here in the desert, right? Way to think that one through, smarty....

I did some further research into this initiative since my original post, and I want you to try not to cry too much when this referendum gets CRUSHED as it is very much expected to. Good thing for all of us that people aren't as ignorant and short cited as you are in this state.

"Immature schoolyard bullying" doesn't even begin to describe you, RobGC. Grow up...

Kozmonot, thanks for the insightful view on the difference between the powers granted to the states and the fed. Unfortunately, I feel that many people in congress, in government offices and the public in general fail to read that document that they have all sworn to uphold and protect. I remember a Biblical phrase that says that "people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge" (not trying to preach only give due credit for where the phrase came from). I feel that in many cases our country is in fact being destroyed, not by liberals, not by conservatives (I am one of these), not by republicans, democrats or independents, but rather by a simple lack of knowledge. Remember, knowledge equals power. Power to make informed choices and decisions, power find solutions, power to overcome obstacles. I realize that the political landscape as it is will never garner peace and good will, but (again quoting the Bible) "a house divided against itself cannot stand." We have, as part of our pledge of allegiance the word "indivisible." So why are we trying to divide it? what good can come of dividing? for the past several political cycles and elections, the system has only become more divisive and more hostile. We are becoming our own worst enemy.

It would be interesting to know what the revenue split is from the "federal lands" in Arizone with the state of Arizona...if there even is any.

I'd assume the right of Arizona to recapture their land from the Federal government would depend on how the Federal government gained control in the first place. If Arizona ceded ownership, then I think they have a problem. If the Federal government seized it, then I think Arizona has a terrific case to get control of their land back.

"Although first afforded Federal protection in 1893 as a Forest Reserve and later as a National Monument, Grand Canyon did not achieve National Park status until 1919, three years after the creation of the National Park Service."

AZ became a state in 1912, so the federal government had already been the custodian of the Grand Canyon twenty years before AZ became the 48th state. As for the other national park lands in AZ, I'd have to research them individually. To a larger point, aside from the obvious concerns of turning over national park lands to the state of AZ, this state cannot afford to operate the state lands they already manage. There have been a number of park closings and rest stop closings for budget reasons here in recent years (they're typically the first things that get cut from our state's budgets). One wonders how this state could afford to manage even one more of these large swaths of land themselves without federal aide? I suspect that the land is wanted by the state to sell off to corporate interests, which would be tragic to say the least. Luckily, from everything I've read, this referendum appears to be quite DOA.....

Also, just the Grand Canyon alone attracts over five million visitors a year from around the world, an brings A LOT of tourism revenue with it. It would be terribly short cited to mar any of the desert landscape in AZ for that reason alone, IMO. Like the Federal Government or not, they do a very good job of managing national parks. Lets not break something that works very well.

short sighted that is....

@Carl Lafoon - If only. I've lived in southern AZ for a long time and the legislature has always been a problem. Funding prisons more than education is a big one among the other wacky laws they waste time on. We're out numbered by Maricopa County which is the greater Phoenix area. That's why there have been some part os the population that want to split the state but, they say it's too expensive.

Is there any more doubt who the real terrorists to America are.

Flush the TeaNuts down the toilet before they do any more damage to us.

OBAMA - BIDEN 2012

@Don the Republicans can't sell what they don't own Clinton sold off America back in the 90's where have you been? as for management of lands in a state it should be up to the states not some dick head pencil neck geek in Washington DC, if you live in Idaho or Montana you understand that the Federal government is the most abusive and inappropriate party to manage our lands they need to be controlled at home not in Washington throw the Fed's out that's what they are doing to us.

if you had a Gardener and he decided that you can't go into your garden would you keep that gardener, that is exactly what the federal government is doing shutting down the forest and reserving them for a very small percent of the worlds population, only the wealthy will have access to the wilderness. its time to dismiss that gardener and every state should reclaim its lands. the government is bought and paid for, they don't work for you anymore. throw them out. let Washington run the economy and foreign affairs and the states run themselves. as was intended by our forefathers when this country was formed. that is constitutional!

CHUDD- Arizona was not granted statehood until 1912, but from 1863 to 1912, it was its own territory (much like Texas and California before they became states). So prior to 1893, the Grand Canyon belonged to(?) the Arizona Territory and prior to that it belonged to(?) the Native Americans that inhabited the area (and still do). I use the question mark on the "ownership issue" because I tend to prefer the mindset of many Native American and Aboriginal tribes: that you don't "own the land", you exist on it and are a part of the ecosystem. That the land doesn't belong to us, but rather we belong to it (hence the saying, you can take the man out of Arizona (or any other state/country), but you can't take the Arizona (or other state/country) out of the man"). You or I can say, "I own this land", but the real question is, "Says who? Who 'gave' it to you?" If we rely on a piece of paper that some government official signed that signifys our "ownership"of a piece of land, what happens when someone in power says they do not recognize our claim to ownership (it happens - think "eminent domain") ? Who do we ultimately appeal to as the ultimate judge of "ownership"? We're basically left with "might makes right". I "own" the land if no one else can take it from me. What we really have is the illusion of "ownership".

As for uranium mines - read the book "Blood of the Land". It has a part in it that talks about how indians were relocated to make way for uranium mines, and were put in areas where houses and roads Included radioactive tailings from uranium mines.

also see:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=abandoned-uranium-mines-a

http://senaawest.bravehost.com/uraniummining/radioactive.htm

http://www.hanksville.org/voyage/misc/uranium/ChurchRock.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/UraniumInNavLand.html

Kozmonot, I don't disagree with you at all, in fact, I agree with most of what you say. We are all occupying land on this earth and do NOT truly "own" a lick of it. Any perceived "ownership" of land on this planet is purely a man made construct, and there are A LOT of people in this world that would do well to remember that. My point is that the US federal government has done a marvelous job since 1893 of being stuarts of these lands by keeping them relatively unharmed, and keeping the habitat and wildlife intact. For the most part, especially in recent decades, the same cannot be said of the state of AZ. I can all but guarantee you that the state politicians in AZ would not be responsible stuarts of the land if it were in their control, not by a long shot. The land would be sold off to the highest bidding corporations and abused (and at the same time working to legislatively remove environmental regulations that would protect that land), hurting the tourist trade and the remaining natural beauty and resources in this state.

You mean like what's been going on in the San Carlos Reservation area (the controversy over allowing mining companies to operate in contested areas)? Then, yeah, I see your point, but I guess there's no guarantee the federal government won't eventually go that route either.

That's because there are many more smart people per capita in the public at large than there are in the legislature. It's gonna take a court about 15 seconds to remind them that the land that is now Arizona was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, long before the state of Arizona existed.

The Grand Canyon became an official national monument in 1908.
Arizona didn't become a state until 1912.
The nation/federal government 'caretaker' the Grand Canyon!

The United Nations owns the Grand Canyon..in 1972 the USA signed the World Heritage Treaty.

In other words even if possible to sell the Grand Canyon from the federal government to the state of Arizona..can't be done since its part of the World Heritage Treaty

Just changing custodians so I suspect no violation. The real concern is that the U.S. doesn't have the funds to maintain all the parks as its citizens would like. Arizona certainly doesn't have the funds to maintain these lands and would need extensive Federal aid to fight forest fires, maintain roads, game, etc. It's a blessing these lands are under Federal control as much of the land is arid without any source of water. Arizona would likely cherry pick to sell some and the rest would rot.

Remember that all rights not expressed in the U.S. Constitution reside with each state/commonwealth. I can see certain Arizona's, republicans and democrats, opting for obtaining these lands. In my opinion, it is not in the long-term best interest of Arizonans whether involved in recreation, industry, hunting, farming, environment preservation, mining, or ranching. Long-term best interest is to remain in Federal hands with Arizona. American-wide, and world-wide ecological watchdogs

There is very little support for this legislation in AZ is an uderstatement. This is just another example of Republicans wanting to sell off public assets. When are the people of AZ going to get tired of these idiot Repulicans and boot theie a$$e$ out of office??? Or are all of them as nuts as these guys? Man, I know we have one of the most corrupt and stupid Governors in the country, but we don't hold a candle to AZ!

Why doesn't AZ get rid of Brewer? That old witch has been nothing but a pain in the butt for years. She is an embarrassment.

It's something of a relief that there is much support for this totally whacked-out proposal. Politics in that state are making it harder and harder to want to come anywhere near it. This from a guy who has floated the GC 10 times and is always ready to go back.

YET another example of GOP BULLs_it!!!!!!!it's time to start attackin' these homeland terrorists!!!!!!!!

So it has little support, I get that. How did it make it onto the ballot in the first place?

@FlaNative55

This is just another example of Republicans wanting to sell off public assets.

If the Federal government would sell just a fraction of a fraction of it's "assets" (are empty buildings rotting away and untouchable wastelands really an asset?) it could pay off it's debt with some left over for much needed infrastructure work. Unfortunately we've got hoards of liberals who believe that private individuals allowed to make money from something that used to belong to the government is the worst evil in the world.

Mike277

"The United Nations owns the Grand Canyon..in 1972 the USA signed the World Heritage Treaty.

In other words even if possible to sell the Grand Canyon from the federal government to the state of Arizona..can't be done since its part of the World Heritage Treaty"

The U.N. Does NOT own the Grand Canyon-you should read the treaty,and how it affects the places designated as World Heritage Sites before spouting BS like that...

"Each signatory to the Convention maintains sovereignty over its sites, is responsible for their protection, and pledges to assist others in preservation efforts. Direct authority over individual properties remains with the national, state, tribal, or local government or private organization in charge."

http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/worldheritage.htm

Thumper- It got on the ballot in AZ because the narrow collection of oligarchs and right wing crazies who run the place want it there. Thinking things through is not a strong suit down here in AZ. Anything which is to benefit to the commonweal is a non-starter-no money in it.

WOW....Claiming that the land is needed to provide jobs, etc.....

States right in the article Utah Governor did the same kind of deal even though "would be a costly legal battle the state will lose.....according to their own attorneys.

So spend a bushel basket full of money that is sorely needed elsewhere.....What the hell is wrong with the ZONIES....getting more radical every day.

Wasn't 1860 the last time somebody tried to remove land from federal control??

How did you zonies let these whackos get ahold of you're state?

@ Backcountry

Have you been eating out of the dog food bowl???

The federal government will just borrow money from China to fund the parks. Don't worry China will take care of us. They have already sent teachers over here to teach our children. Somebody has to.

Under Romney they'll do exactly that. His plan to staple a green card on every diploma from foreign countries after eliminating caps on H1B visa's will insure all American jobs are for sale. He said he'd create 12 million jobs, he didn't say he wouldn't bring people in to fill them.

It sounds like Arizona is slowly but surely planing to secede from the rest of the nation. This is to set the stage for refusing to pay federal tax to the federal government....

tom-1768340

Wasn't 1860 the last time somebody tried to remove land from federal control??

I am guessing that history is not one of your strong suits

@Tankie 1

@ Backcountry

Have you been eating out of the dog food bowl???

Tankie, was that comment supposed to make sense to anyone other than the voices in your head???

lapere,

Then it is the reasonsibility of the rational non-oligarch, non-neocon citizen to not only vote, but also to counsel fellow citizens, especially the less thoughful, against listening to the mountain of BS that will be heaped upon this issue. All too many times, we have seen truly not well thought out ideas passed into the Federal Constitution and those of the states. Remember Prohibition (federal) and the balanced budget movement (states). The balanced budget concept seemed like a good idea, but virtually all implementations have not allowed adequate reserves to be accumulated (give the citizens back their money). As a result, recessions like our most recent result in mass lay-offs, closed schools and firehouses and inadequate police forces to deal with the population. To raise money as a result of these strictures, Indiana sold a 100year lease on the Indiana turnpike to a Dutch-Arab consortium and recent sold management rights in the Hoosier Lottery to a New Jersey gambling management firm. Others have raised this issue, but I will repeat; What and to whom will Arizona sell to stimulate its economy?

I'm not shure this is all about parks and world heritage its more about the near 50% of land controlled by the Federal government that should be controled by the people that live there this is about the states being able to control their resources, the Federal government is all screwed up in that respect they need to go they are turning into a bad neighborhood authority union or whatever its called when a group of people tell you that you cant paint your house without permission from the group, or have more then one car in the driveway at any time. and the local neighborhood watch are a bunch of bullies that beat you up if you step on the grass. states need more say about there public lands let the feds have there National parks but the land and recources belong to the people of that state. and screw that world heritage thing we can care for our own better then they can thats just a tool for the new world order to start taxing us open your eyes that is future income for the UN. I'm suprised to see so much conservative backing for such a liberal thing its got to be resurched well to make a fair decision. time to do some homework.

In essence the Tea Party stands for "MINE MINE MINE it's MINE and everyone else can go to hell and die as it's freaking MINE!!!!!!". Selfish is as selfish does.

Yep Sandy, that pretty much does sum it up. Wikipedia demographics further explain that it's comprised mostly of 55+, white, male, wanna-be anarchists.

Well you know where all this is going. If Arizona get's its way, Alaska will be next in line, just so they can drill, baby, drill in the ANWR.

Billy, I believe that you are correct.

Sandy,Missouri...you seem obsessed by a deep seeded hatred towards conservatives, I'm just guessing here. Me, personally, I have no commitment in this argument. But you really seem to feel passionately about this. I may be confused (as I often am), but I don't see why something as silly as some group in Arizona attempting to put a senseless initiative forward that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the courts should bother you so much. If you want to be fired up over something like this, your motivation is your business, but I was just a little worried about you (you don't want to wind up like me, trust me).

You don't have to hate conservatives, just their repulsive notions. Actually, what are commonly referred to as conservatives are actually reactionaries. The TP's and Libertarians are the worst. Taking your Economic policies from a novelist and social policies based on 8th grade history and no concept of civics, let alone the teaching of jesus, is a grand formula for governance. If you want to see it in action, visit Somalia.

@ Sandy

If I bought it or if I work for it, then yes, it is mine! That isn't a Tea Party thing it is an ownership thing. If I want to give away part of what I buy/work for then I will, but if I don't, I won't. Pretty sure you speaking of the "me/entitlement" generation not the Tea Party. I worked and paid for everything I own for myself and my family, so in essence it is mine and everyone else can go to hell. If you wish to give your earnings/assets away to someone that thinks they are entitled go ahead.

Amen to Tankie 1

Hey,,, so much for the UNITED states of america.

Also,,, I think the residents of Colorado should reclaim all rights to the WATER from the Colorado river and not let any of it outside the states boundaries. Fair is fair.

Exactly what generation is the "Me / Entitlement Generation?" The Baby Boomers or Generation X? Those generations have done such a stand up job of raping the country of what they thought were entitled to, there is practically nothing left for my generation.

RTColorado,

It might interest you to know that I, whom you would label a liberal, feel the same about property. But I also recognize my obligation to pay for protection of US citizens and property abroad (a function of the State Department and the Department of Defense); to protect my life, that of my family and property (Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, as well as state and local law enforcement); to protect my property from fraud and embezzlement (the Department of Justice and state and local law enforcement); to protect the air I breathe and the water I drink and soil upon which I live or from which I receive my food ( the EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy); to hold in trust our joint property, the American wildlife, lands and waters under federal ownership and/or management ( the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA); the support and benefit of the native peoples from who we stole this land (the Department of the Interior); the uniform, successful education of all American children to the best of their abilities (the Department of Education); and finally the promotion of American business so that as either a business owner or as an employee, I have a right to earn a living through either entrepneurship, investment or through skilled or unskilled labor (the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor).

That I feel is our difference, I willingly pay; but you feel too "entitled" to pay for the same things, not to mention updated highways, while many of us live with narrow two-lane strips or even unimproved (dirt and gravel) paths. While you have numerous modern airports, we have ONE modern airport within the state (average travel to major airport is over 100miles, my personal closest is 65mi.).

However, vague or unlikely the success of this measure is, it reflects a continuing attitude from certain Western states that they are not really part of US, but the put upon special children of Uncle Sam. Trust me, you get more attention than any of the states who fought the Civil War (mostly at there own expense) for the Union.

I think the Republicans are spending too much time in the sun and have fried what little grey matter they have.

But it's a dry heat...

So is hell...or are we talking about the same thing here?

I was going for my oven, but that works too. I would have put a little sarcastic face next to it, but I don't know any.

If this would happen to pass, there may be grounds to suggest succession by the State of Arizona. And if this should be pursued in court, the Federal government ought to declare all land, water and mineral lease rights null and void. Further, we have all heard of the problems returning soldiers are having finding jobs, a volunteer corps of regular and by-the-month army of occupation ought to assert federal rights to this land. Posse commitatus only applies IF the American land is in concert with the federal government. Forcible seizure of a federal fort (Ft. Sumter) was the flashpoint of the Civil War. This could be equated as forcible as I doubt any federal administration of either party would agree.

Note: why was this not negotiated in 1912? Could it be that Arizona wanted that vast wasteland to be free to cheap federal land protected by the US Army?

as in "we control the court not the people of the U.S." perchance?

Actually Jesus carved it with a fake dinosaur bone. I have proof. Well, you don't have any proof that he DIDN'T, and that's proof enough for me.

What are you talking about? I know for a fact that the flying spaghetti monsters dropped a meatball and it created the grand canyon, it's a proven fact, it says so in the olive garden menu.

Actually, I think Brewer is catching Romnysia and wants to sell GC to the Chinese. ):

Mexico will take Arizona back.

He's a blowhard...

If by "doing his job" you mean "is a fine politician," then yes, you are correct. There was a time I agreed with nearly all he said. Then I started doing some looking. Sheriff Joe is fine as long as you meet 3 simple requirements:

1) don't get raped or molested

2) don't be brown

3) don't be in his jails for anything

A sheriff is supposed to be an impartial representative of the executive branch. In Joe's defense, his primary response is to pass the buck. "I didn't know/not my fault/you're in jail for something" are pretty typical. In that respect, he's an awesome politician.

No one else in this country could get away with saying "My deputies did it, don't blame me" when his job WAS to supervise and manage the deputies. Since we all like to laugh at the prisoners who have to sleep in tents (as long as we aren't one), Joe gets away with it.

Renegade don't let the facts hit you in the face, they hurt. This president has had just a fraction of illegals come into the country compared to Bush over the same time period and Obama has deported more illegals in under 4 years than Bush did in 8.

SLAP SLAP SLAP Now go rub your ouchie.

Sandy, are you really a woman? 'Cause that sounded like a "special kind" of slap to me.

I was being nice. I wanted to kick him where his brains are located but I figured kicking a guy in the crotch would get me in trouble here.

Sandy, Missouri

Thats maybe one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen on here. And your completely wrong on your immigration figures, which is typical for liberals, why state facts when you can just make stuff up. Obama is the one trying to up his voting pool by offering amnesty to illegals. What exactly have the Dems done positive for you to have so much idiotic blind faith in a corrupt organization like that. the republicans are no better, but Sandy you say putting the Reps in office is like putting pedophiles in charge of a pre-school (which is a foolish statement) well your beloved Dems are the same pedophiles your screaming about. If you truely think either party is better or different then the other, then you truely are a fool. Remember Sandy, its better to be thought of as a fool then to post and prove it.

@Sandy, Missouri

... don't let the facts hit you in the face, they hurt.

But obviously not enough to prevent you from parroting the standard liberal rhetoric over and over again.

I can't help but laugh my ass off when the yahoos from one party make hypocrites of themselves ranting about the yahoos in the other party.

Sorry Gary, but you're the one without the correct information. According to the Homeland Digital Security Library:

In the report Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol: 2005–2010 the Office of Immigration Statistics found that "Border Patrol apprehensions declined 61 percent from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 463,000 in 2010". "Apprehension statistics are one of the few indicators of illegal entry into or presence in the United States."

Maybe time to stow the personal attacks ... hmmmm?

I got friends in Az. and they are very thankfull for Sheriff Joes efforts. If it wasn't for him that state would be over-run with criminals that come from south of the border that have been given carte-blanche by the federal government and bleeding heart liberals.

Maybe it did decline 61 percent..........they don't want to come here anymore......no jobs !

So you are saying the economy is so bad that even illegals from South of the Border see more opportunity in Mexico than the US? Is that also why so many are leaving?

Actually there has been a net "loss" of illegals. More are now leaving than are coming in. If the right was smart they would say it is because the economy is "better" in Mexico. But, like we've seen from Mittens, they can't even hit a ball on a tee.

No doubt Brewer has discovered the benefits of Peyote. They want the military bases land and then lease it back to the government for big bucks I suppose, running the military out of Arizona will drastically effect the Arizona economy. The Border Patrol will be pulled out and they just think they have immigration problems now, will it be open season on wetbacks, they can't violate federal laws, they will still be a state, how about the indian lands, is Arizona going to send the indians their pay checks every month. We need to see some geological survey maps, there must be gold or oil or something on these federal lands that Arizona wants to get their hands on. Sorry, while I support states rights, this is just getting ridiculous.

Perhaps they want to drill on the land?

If it wasn't for him that state would be over-run with criminals that come from south of the border that have been given carte-blanche by the federal government and bleeding heart liberals.

And if he happens to arrest and/or deport a few American citizens, too, no big thing. After all, it's their own fault because they look Mexican.

Lol, and take their stupid canyon with them!

Let them try... We can kick their asses again.

What? And give up their federal taxpayer welfare? Won't happen.

Okay with me if they secede, but the Canyon stays with us.

lol Rick. Taxpayer welfare. Tell that to the million illegals here. That accounts for most of the welfare in this state. If AZ did cede, there'd be nothing for them to stay here for and they'd just move to your neck of the woods. Maybe you don't mind an increased crime rate, lower revenues, and entire sections of your city becoming shanty towns with $40000 cars outside every shack. You don't actually live here. You don't know what the problems are. You can read all the articles you want, but fact is that unless you are HERE you don't have a real idea.

I totally agree that this measure is pretty dumb. The canyon does indeed have a crap ton of resources in the surround, but as others have pointed out, going after them will by default destroy one of the most incredible pieces of mother nature that exists, as well as polluting the water supplies that feed most of the southwest. I love camping on the Kaibab Plateau, where all the uranium is supposed to be buried. I've been to the GC many times and it never gets old. It's an incredibly humbling experience standing next to something that immense. You come to realize that if you piled all of humanity into it, it wouldn't come close to filling up. That gives me a sense of unity with everyone else, and a desire to protect that amazing hole in the ground. We're all pathetically small and powerless and messing with nature is not something we're even remotely qualified for. Mining/drilling/developing that area of the state would be like melting down Lady Liberty to mint more pennies. Excessively, horribly bad idea.

That being said, this measure is also about taking large tracts of empty, barren land and putting them to some kind of use. Many don't realize it, but there is actually very little in Arizona. The forests here run in little strips across the middle of the state and upward toward the GC. Vast regions have little to offer for anything. No water, no specific resources, blistering temperatures. It's just open space that is generally neglected as being useless. If Arizona can get ahold of some of this empty space and maybe get zoning for industry in a few places, it creates jobs and opportunities/examples for bussinesses elsewhere.

I try to look at both sides of the coin. Yes, we need to protect the environment and especially natural wonders like the GC and Kaibab Forest. At the same time, there needs to be space for all the jobs that this county is hoping to start creating, regardless of who is President. The population is growing. More and more people are entering a job market that's 10+ years behind the times. I'm voting against the measure because it does demand exploitation of natural wonders and land that I love and cherish. I hope everyone else does as well. Yeah, nuclear power is something important if we want to step away from oil, but I'd rather not lose my favorite stomping ground and have one of the most incredible natural formations on earth become the Grand Open Pit Mine. If this concept comes back in a couple years with basically the same concept, but leaves the GC and surrounding areas out of it, I'm totally down. 10k square miles of nothing but dirt and occasional shrubs in exchange for jobs and increased economic security for AZ sounds good. And heck, if AZ's making more money, we can support the illegal immigrants that everyone that doesn't live on the border cares so much about.

Ashtaroth -

My take on this whole thing is that Arizona would like to get some additional resource areas opened up to state authority, but they still want the Fed's to provide management with all of the associated headaches and funding. Brewer vetoed a legislative petition for for 48,000 acres last spring because the state couldn't afford to actually take over the land. They're just using this new legislation as a thorn in the Fed's paw.

That should have been 48,000 square miles, not acres.

Ashtaroth - a lot of that so called barren wasteland is on the indian reservations - so AZ now wants the white man to again take from the indian. WHat will we give them in return - how about all of TUcson and Phoenix and include the suburbs?

Hollykb. There IS a lot of barren wasteland on the reservations. But what many people out West simply want is NOT to take from the Native American lands, nor from national monuments, nor from national parks, nor from lands that are particularly sensative environmentally. But to regain SOME of those vast areas of land for some private holding and investment.

I can't speak much to the politics (or this particular ballot measure) in Arizona, because I'm not as familiar with that state as I am with where I live in Nevada. But it is a common theme in this state with not just republicans, but with democrats as well that our tax base is much too small to support county and state functions. Why? Because of the sheer amount of land owned by the federal government. About 82% of all land in the state of Nevada is owned by the Feds and is therefore not available for investment of any kind...and therefore not available for any kind of taxable activity to support local schools, police/fire departments, or any function of state government. There are some counties in Nevada where the ratios of federally owned land is even worse. Imagine living in a county with a growing population base where only 5% (or less) of all the land is privately owned. What hope would you have for any future...to your tax base, commercial or industrial development, agricultural activities, etc.?

Most reasonable people acknowledge that there are huge sections of public land in the state that should always remain under federal control. Probably even the majority of it should remain under federal control. But I've lived in Nevada for 40 years, and I've traveled nearly every backcountry highway all over the state, and there's a lot of land that has no environmental sensativity, isn't part of any kind of unique geological feature, isn't on a military base, isn't associated with a national park or monument, and isn't anywhere close to a reservation. By a lot I mean hundreds of thousands of acres that could be disposed of by auction generating large amounts of money for the federal government, and establishing huge economic benefits at the local level. If for nothing else to use for future geothermal & solar energy development & generation.

For goodness sakes, the entire state of Nevada encompasses nearly 71 million acres of land. And the federal govenment controls more than 58 million acres of that total. Can any of you really say that there aren't at least a couple million of that total that could be disposed of wisely in a public auction around the state?

I post this about Nevada, but many Western states including WY, NV, AZ, UT, ID, & AK have citizens from both sides of the aisle that routinely deal with these questions & issues.

Allow me to put it into perspective for you as a comparison. One prominent poster on here is from Missouri. That state encompasses 44.6 million acres of land. Only about 7% or 3.1 million acres of land in Missouri is public lands. How much additional economic activity both through private investment & local and state taxes do you figure is generated for the economy in Missouri because so much of the state is owned privately vs. say a state like Nevada or Utah or Idaho? Is it fair that the majority of the states in the Union have 80% or more of their land held privately to the benefit of their citizens while a handful of states will NEVER be able to see even 50% of their land mass in private hands?

Most people in the West (outside I guess of AZ) that discuss this issue are not talking of trying to have 93% of their land mass in private hands like Missouri. But would it really be asking that much for people in the Eastern half of the country living in states with little or no public lands to understand that their own state and local governments & economies would be devastated if they were held to the same standards of public/private land ownership ratios as those of us citizens living in the West?

As a citizen of Nevada & someone who spends a lot of time in the rural outdoors of the state, and appreciates the special areas of the state that should be protected...I would say the feds could dispose of 5% of their land holdings privately in the state in the next dozen years and it would do nothing to harm protected areas, military bases, or Native American populations in NV. And it would be a huge economic boon to the state. Afterall, the feds would still control more than three-quarters of all the land in the state.

I'm a fairly reasonable person, and I from what I read, I don't think I'd support or vote for this ballot issue in AZ, but I at least understand some of the frustration that people there feel. Trying to take over the GC or national parks is dumb, but privatizing a few million of acres of public land out there all over the West when the feds control hundreds of millions of acres? I don't think that is unreasonable.

Yea, like Lambo-1783958 says-"We're dumb and proud of it!"

And are you like that lady on the YouTube video who couldn't even describe what a communist is? Other than just more name-calling.

And weren't the Commies known as "Reds"? lmfao!

Sorry to bum you out Lambo, I'm from the valley too. Speaking of Mexico, looks like you went to school there.

Not true scooter... the vast majority of logical sane, people know the lawsuits are because of AZ morons passing moronic laws that do not stand the reality of justice. Everything Brewer - the idiot does, ends up in court. Same as Nazi Joe. If Sherrif joe really wanted to get tough on crime, he would shoot himself. He is the biggest criminal in AZ

I guess it depends on what you consider a "vast majority".

I dont live in AZ and have no problem with the laws they passed, if you dont like it move. Oh wait your illegal and cant just move freely!!! LOL I see some libs here who posted on the story about the high school girls holding up bible versus at games and yelling that it was illegal and they were breaking the law by having them at school functions since its a violation of church and state laws. Funny you same liberals want to make fun of Arizona now for upholding the Immigration law??? Typical liberal BS whats good for us, isnt good for everyone, you only want to yell about upholding the law when it suits you, but when it doesnt you just want to call people names. Thats why liberals cant make traction that sticks, you flip flop on everything, uphold the law you say, oh but not if it goes against our beliefs, THOSE laws are stupid and dont need to be listened to. As for Sandy commenting on how tough Obama is on immigration, are you reading reports from Iran???? Obama has by far and away the lowest deportation rates ever. And Sandy by all means go on the internet and look that up, its out there, this way if you read some facts you wont look so foolish.

Gary - I am a lib, nothing wrong with enforcing the immigration laws, so long as we enforce them equally, if we build a fence between AZ and Mexico, build a fence between Montana and Canada. When the fences are built if they cut across private property fairly and equitably compensate those whose land is taken (and your land should be considered taken if the fence makes easy and direct access impossible). ANd increast the federal revenue stream to pay for it - in other words increase taxes.

We make fun of AZ because they feel it is their right to supecede federal law, and perogative? If they have issues with the Fed govt failing to enforce immigration sue the federal govt.

Oh and I did look up the stats (my source is Library of Econimcs and Liberty) I averaged the 8 years 2001-2008 GW Bush versus the average of 2009-2010 all Obama data reported - Bush averaged 211,000 deportations per year versus 391,000 for Obama.

Holly...You forgot one...Build a fence around Toronto and the borders up there in Maine. A whole lot of Canadians are behind the entry into the US from that particular border. They get into Canada from Atlantic Candian ports of entry and then slip over the border in Maine and the New England states. And these are not Hispanic illegals...Many are Middle Eastern and women and child brought into the US for the sex slave traders.

The lawsuits were only filed to try to imtimadate AZ. It is about time the states stood up to Obama, and try to get him to do the job he was elected to do. It is a matter of state's rights. for most of the people not living in the western states, they have no idea. I sure hope AZ doesn't turn blue like California and Greece. You can see the problems they have, and most of us Arizonan's don't want any part of it.

IA Scooter, you have to stand with the Constitution, and no let feelings about how much you are liked, to control your values. If the forfathers worried about how much the Crown would not like them they would never have founded this country. Get some backbone, and stand up for your principals, and quit worrying about what other's might think.

Bill...Bingo! Texas Big Oil is after every square inch of land in the US because they know Americans are not snuggling up anymore to their addiction to foreign oil that's only causing us more trouble and more tax dollars to fly out the window.

TX and AZ governments are as thick as thieves and think about why the states to the north were outraged when their land was allowed to be taken by CanOil for that Keystone Pipeline...all while AZ and TX were smug ass about how not an inch of their state residents would be touched by that eminent domain.

Anyone else fed up with swaggering JOs in these 2 states bullying the rest of the states? And what the hell is with these elected Republicans who have the nuts to dare and play Father Knows Best with Main Street Americans. Any more for their bossy ass BS and it's gone about as far as WE will allow. These AZ and TX politicians are supposed to represent people...Not Big Businesses like Big Oil. We are under no obligation to help Big Oil. They are "on their own." And if these Republican Aholes don't stop telling us what to do, when to do it and how, the blowback will be a few pairs of shoes up their double sized butts.

Of course there is oil or gas or some other mineral there why else would the republicans be trying to get it except for personal profit. the problem is the people there let these republicans $crew them year after year just like their parents did and their parents did and so will their children. (My daddy was a republican and so am I) kind of sad

Just flush it.

Mic - the Grand Canyon was Federally Protected as a recreation area by TRoosevelt in 1906, Arizona became a state in 1912. They never had jurisdiction over it.

While it is true the canyon became a feeral park 6 years before it became a state, it was a Territory long before that. Territories have governments. The question is how much of a states land can the federal government own? Back east where the states are small and there is no land for the governent, it is not a problem, but when the feds own more then half the land, that can become a problem. My question is, is it better to drill for oil on land, where leaks can be fixes much more easily, or is ti better to drill in the deep oceans? Besides they could drill miles away from the park lands.

Thank you, Hollykb. I read through almost all of these comments -- and the original article -- and none but yours considers the historical events that led to federal control of the Grand Canyon. One reason the Canyon was designated a "forest reserve" (in 1893), a national monument (in 1908), and later a national park (in 1919) was to counter lumbermen, mining interests, and out-of-control tourism that were already visibly deteriorating parts of the natural wonder. As you say, the Grand Canyon was never state land because it had been under federal control since before the State of Arizona was formed. For people in the state to now claim that they "want the canyon back" requires complete ignorance of their own history.

The Pueblo Indians could and would build in the Canyon. Give it to them.

This makes more sense then giving it to Arizona. The Pueblo were there first.

Yea, right. The Federal Government has not done such a bang up job, going to most of California's national parks take nearly a year's reservation. The Pueblo were not the first, there has been wildlife there for millions of years before them. Maybe we should deed it to the wildlife, I know them personaly, and they would allow me to visit the park when ever I want, for free. As for the Pueblo they built in the national park areas (before they were parks) but left. That is considered abandoment after 30 days, over 300 years is not even a consideration. Lets the Feds keep the canyon, and give the states back eveything else.

Your right lets get the USA back on its feet, VOTE OBAMA OUT.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012

The only way to get this Country on its right track... You never vote Democrat when there are

financial problems.. The Dems create financial problems, chaos.

Sure is a good thing that 8 years of Bush/Cheney never happened, isn't it?

Pelosi, and Reid created this depression, with their Home Loan for the poor. Obama has done nothing to improve the country, instead he thought it was not bad enough so he is creating more pain and suffering.

As for Arizona, why does the Federal Government own nearly half the state? I can see the Grand Canyon, and other National Parks, but not 41%. Most of the western reservations are larger them most of the states. It is time that the federal government gives back most of the land. It should never own more then 10% of any state.

"...FEDERAL GOV'T GIVES? Let Arizona buy the land if they want it that badly, and no federal funds to help them. Brewer and the Tea Party people have some strange ideas. Next, they will want to control the air space over their crazy state, but will demand federal funds to help them do it. How much longer will the insanity go on?

which one? Dont matter i guess... but pelosi and hillary are both busy getting there brooms ready for next week... the one Holiday they fit right in without makeup..why do you ask?

Speaking of Halloween, I wonder what Christine O'Donnell is doing, but I'm a little afraid to ask!

I'm not sure what your Mom is doing, you should call her and ask.

.