WaExaminer: Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is already looking ahead to forming his top White House team and is considering one of his sons as the head of the Interior Department.
In an interview with Petersen’s Hunting, he offered both his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, as the cabinet secretary because they are hunters and anglers and members of key conservation and Second Amendment groups.
In the interview with editor Mike Schoby, Trump said that “ideally” he wants an outdoorsman to run the agency that manages federal land.
Nothin’ like a l’il nepotism to Make America Great Again.
Sometimes I swear he has a tin ear
Good for him.
Planning ahead.
“Personnel is policy.”
I’d prefer all of em did this.
It gives us insight into their real objectives.
Hope there’s not any awkward pictures of him and one his sons floating around out there somewhere, like the one with him and his daughter…
?
Nice brown trout.
what if the guy is qualified .. o ye who jumpeth on any naked fish story ?? with barry o’fraud, U just need to be a black mofo & bundle money for the black criminal cabal ..a la Jeh of de’ hommie land security ..
I’m amazed at the anti trump things that show up here.
if someone in the present line-up, other than trump gets
the presidency, WE ARE GONE ..
My only concern is the “members of key conservation and Second Amendment groups.”
The second amendment part is spot on, but I hope the “conservation” part is not an environmental nazi-type group intent on “saving the planet”.
Ok, I might be a bit over sensitive on that part! I hate enviroweenies.
I wish Trump was half as articulate as his children
It’s okay, Sarah Palin can still serve as head of Energy.
Claudia. Check out the Petersens article thats linked it will give you agood look at where his son is coming from in regards to the outdoors.
Whoever is best for the job. I’ll bet you any amount of money it beats whoever has the job now.
“plot” ? That’s patently ridiculous. I watched the interview Trump and his son had with Petersen’s Hunting at the Shot. Really encourage people to read the article because it covers a lot of things that don’t usually get any attention in an election, but they’re very important — like the 2A.
From the article:
DTJr.: “But as it relates to hunting and fishing rights and outdoor rights, I’m going to insert myself in it. The biggest family joke that we all had over the holidays was that the only job in government that I would actually want would be in the Department of the Interior.
Because I can make a difference, and I could do something to preserve the great traditions of the outdoors that are so vital to this country, and would be so vital to our youth, that have been shunned by the media and stigmatized in so many ways”
That’s the only reference in the entire (long) interview/article containing the word “interior”. The word “cabinet” is nowhere in the article.
I wasn’t aware of Ted Cruz’s direct involvement in the issue of public land sales. It’s a long article, well written by Petersen’s Hunting for their magazine. The WaPo turned it into a Trump hit piece.
“MS: One of the biggest threats hunters are facing is the sale or transfer of “excess” public lands in the West. Sen. Ted Cruz filed an amendment to the Bipartisan Sportsman’s Act of 2014 to do just this in states where over 50 percent of the property is owned by the federal government. Would you or your father support any federal land sale?
DT Jr: In my opinion, Ted is 100 percent wrong to have Congress mandate a blanket approach to sell any percentage of federal lands to the states.
Clear back to Teddy Roosevelt, our federal lands were the American public’s greatest treasure. They are where our people love to hunt fish, hike, camp, snowmobile, and recreate.”
.
During all this
TRUMP VS CRUZ
stuff, I thought
it would help
to remember
WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THE GOPe
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/marco-rubios-7-top-achievements-u-s-senate/
“Divide And Conquer” must not happen to us!
I like my National Forests National. California tried to eliminate shooting in a National Forest a couple years ago. Which means no hunting too. Our Forests are managed very well. Screw with it and it will only get worse.
My pet peeve is not with the parks, but with gov. owned property. They they ALWAYS take the best sights and build on them. They could build off the highway a bit, or not on a prime corner. In my city alone, the forest service has taken prime property and removed it from the tax roles. The state has done the same with their buildings. A Guard camp with shooting range, IN TOWN. Government is the most inefficient entity known to mankind.
WaPo twisted this story to be anti-Trump in order to hide Cruz’s amendment. And as far as I can tell, the amendment was placed there in order to “help balance” the fed budget. Talk about nickle and diming us to death. But the serious part of selling public lands back to the states is that once it’s sold, the states can, in turn, dispose of the land any way the state wants which means they can sell it — and would likely sell it — to the highest private interest. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Short term gain that wouldn’t help balance the budget anyway.
I was really impressed at how involved Don Jr. is in hunting and how he got his start in it. This is a really involved bunch of kids.
So let me see if I understand the opinion expressed here.
Trump good,
Trump’s son may be the best candidate for the job, but he can’t be worse than who is there now, so leave Trump alone.
WaPo used the original article to try and hurt Trump, how dare them.
Cruz was mentioned and he is bad.
Cruz wants to divest the federal government of land it is not legally allowed to own and this is bad because it means the States might sell it to private interests, which is bad.
Making the government land private is bad because it will hurt hunters who might have to pay more to hunt on the privately held lands.
Funny how it always breaks down the same way for the every topic. As for it being bad to divest the federal government of all that land, wrong. It is the best possible outcome because the States will hold on to certain parcels that have value. Private interests will be fine with the others, doing far better than the Feds at taking care of it. Yes, it might cost more to hunt. Funny thing is that now it might be cheaper to hunt on public lands, but it is time for the rest of us to be relieved of subsidizing the sport of others. The money used by the federal government to administer these lands comes from all of us.
It seems to me that there are a lot of folks complaining due to the old adage of “don’t gore my sacred cow”. Fortunately for us the folks in Iowa didn’t fall for that concerning ethanol.
Hey Woody, Totally taking politics out of the discussion, National Forestry land is the peoples land. It gives access to hunting, fishing, hiking, and nature for people that can’t afford to pay for that privilege. You can cleverly try and spin this any way you want it but I’m of the opinion that preserving large plots of native untouched Americana is a good thing. Give it back to the states and they will screw it up. Especially when you consider most states are deeply in debt. If you want to go after miss managed federal land go after the BLM.
Have you seen this? House Votes To Sell Apache Land To Foreign Corporation, The Tribe Is Furious
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/09/ndaa-apache/
charlie, Holy crap, how did they pull that off? Tribal land is sovereign.
Brad, The federal land in Colorado is filled with rich urbanites who can afford $5000 mountain bikes, $50,000 campers pulled by $40,000 Subaru’s wearing $3000 worth of hiking gear or $10,000 worth of hunting gear. OR unemployable stoners out burning up the weed they bought by standing on a street corner begging for money and leaving their campsites trashed.
I guess there is a third category, hard core liberals who think they are the hall monitors for the federal government but who won’t f..k with the stoners because you never know when one flip out.
That’s been my observation anyway.
Start the land patent process again and divest the federal government of 50% of their current holdings and cut the blm in half.
Woody — Yes, there really is politics in everything. The Wapo took an article that was originally written by Petersen’s and turned it into a ridiculously speculative headline about political nepotism. In fact the first comment, above, drew the conclusion the WaPo was looking for. And that’s not what the article is remotely about.
I don’t know if there are still any corporations looking to “sponsor” state and national parks and recreation spots, but some years ago I remember talk about McDonalds, Coke and others looking to “help” the gov’t by advertising in those places. Just what we need in places like Mt. Rainier Nat’l Park, replacing all the green-painted trash bins with “Sunshine Crackers Hopes You Enjoy Your Visit to Sunshine Campground! (please place trash here)” Or a Starbucks (serving Tahoma Blend) at Liberty Ridge, just before you summit.
I want Ivanka to hold my interior position or just 20 minutes or so…
Brad, its gubbermint. They do whatever the hell they want, and we cant stop them
Charlie, Yes but Tribal land is technically not part of the U.S. It would be like congress selling Japan.