Interior Dept. shutting down mining in 10 states
From the Congressional House Natural Resources Committee. This action by an Obama political appointee, the Secretary of the Interior, shows the importance of which party is in the White House regardless of what you think of the president himself. Democrats since Clinton-I have appointed radical viros to run the government.
According to Mark Levin there are almost 4,000 political appointees assigned by the president and those he appoints to do the radical appointing. That is in addition to those they hire to be entrenched in the protected civil service. It is also in addition to Federal judges, about 40% of which have now been appointed by Obama. Another eight years of this means a nearly complete loss of control over how the Federal government functions for what political purposes, regardless of what Congress does or what new laws are passed making it worse.
USGS Study Reveals Extensive Impacts of Obama Administration’s War on Mineral Development
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 7, 2016
CONTACT: Parish Braden, Elise Daniel or Molly Block (202) 226-9019
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Sally Jewell is developing controversial plans to cordon off approximately 10 million acres of federal lands located in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming from mineral development. The withdrawals are one plank of the Obama administration's broader regulatory scheme to create a de-facto Endangered Species Act listing for the sage grouse. Earlier this week, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released an 800-page assessment of mineral potential within each state subject to potential future withdrawals.
House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:
“This assessment shows significant negative impacts for western states if these withdrawals proceed. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Despite successful species conservation efforts at the state level, and a finding last year that listing the bird under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted, the Obama administration wants total regulatory control and a much more permanent trophy for litigious environmental groups. Along with oppressive land use plans covering parts of 10 states—with restrictions for all types of economic activities—these withdrawals have the potential to be even more punitive and damaging to energy producers and rural economies than an endangered finding. This is a de-facto listing and then some. USGS’s report is small snapshot of the pain to come. This issue will require continued oversight even after the Obama administration is finally gone. Blocking mineral development by another executive fiat is inexcusable, and the Committee will be sure to keep a close eye on it.
“Secretary Salazar told the states they should adopt sage grouse protection plans and they would be accepted. States have spent time and money to create good plans. The current Secretary is now reneging on that promise. The state plans work and the department’s proposal does not. The department’s proposal hurts military preparedness and military ranges in the West, a fact that has never been taken into consideration.”
Background:
At a minimum, the USGS report suggests the withdrawal of such a massive area could have significant negative impacts to nearly 1.3 million acres of moderate to high resource potential. The withdrawal could also affect over 7,000 mining claims across several Western states, including Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Wyoming and Montana.
###
According to Mark Levin there are almost 4,000 political appointees assigned by the president and those he appoints to do the radical appointing. That is in addition to those they hire to be entrenched in the protected civil service. It is also in addition to Federal judges, about 40% of which have now been appointed by Obama. Another eight years of this means a nearly complete loss of control over how the Federal government functions for what political purposes, regardless of what Congress does or what new laws are passed making it worse.
USGS Study Reveals Extensive Impacts of Obama Administration’s War on Mineral Development
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 7, 2016
CONTACT: Parish Braden, Elise Daniel or Molly Block (202) 226-9019
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Sally Jewell is developing controversial plans to cordon off approximately 10 million acres of federal lands located in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming from mineral development. The withdrawals are one plank of the Obama administration's broader regulatory scheme to create a de-facto Endangered Species Act listing for the sage grouse. Earlier this week, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released an 800-page assessment of mineral potential within each state subject to potential future withdrawals.
House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:
“This assessment shows significant negative impacts for western states if these withdrawals proceed. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Despite successful species conservation efforts at the state level, and a finding last year that listing the bird under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted, the Obama administration wants total regulatory control and a much more permanent trophy for litigious environmental groups. Along with oppressive land use plans covering parts of 10 states—with restrictions for all types of economic activities—these withdrawals have the potential to be even more punitive and damaging to energy producers and rural economies than an endangered finding. This is a de-facto listing and then some. USGS’s report is small snapshot of the pain to come. This issue will require continued oversight even after the Obama administration is finally gone. Blocking mineral development by another executive fiat is inexcusable, and the Committee will be sure to keep a close eye on it.
“Secretary Salazar told the states they should adopt sage grouse protection plans and they would be accepted. States have spent time and money to create good plans. The current Secretary is now reneging on that promise. The state plans work and the department’s proposal does not. The department’s proposal hurts military preparedness and military ranges in the West, a fact that has never been taken into consideration.”
Background:
At a minimum, the USGS report suggests the withdrawal of such a massive area could have significant negative impacts to nearly 1.3 million acres of moderate to high resource potential. The withdrawal could also affect over 7,000 mining claims across several Western states, including Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Wyoming and Montana.
###
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
The existence of the two party system is not on the ballot. Voting for or against candidates when it makes a difference is not support for the "two party system". The two party system already exists. The choice in this election is between Trump and Clinton. One of them will be president.
Ayn Rand saw no significant difference between Carter and Reagan's first campaign. Carter was not Hilary Clinton, and Reagan's speeches pandering to the mixed economy were not the utopian positions now claimed by conservatives. Ayn Rand did say that she would have to vote for Reagan if the Democrats put up a socialist-like candidate. She never said to not vote for candidates from the two parties and in particular she denounced the Libertarian Party and explained why. Invoking Ayn Rand in this PR stunt for the LP is dishonest.
Some real problems are solved or ameliorated by voting against the worst of the candidates, like Clinton, in the context of the choice available here in reality. Those who have read Ayn Rand and who don't misrepresent her as Libertarian know that throughout her career she advocated the solution to the decline of politics and the culture as spreading the right philosophical ideas and that there are no shortcuts. Those who have been involved in politics today know that Libertarians are inept at impacting even shorter term policy.
The socialists became politically more influential because of the spread of collectivist/altruist/statist ideology, as systematically spread in politics by movements like the Fabians.
The a-philosophical Libertarian Party wants to bypass philosophy, expecting to become influential simply by being there on the fringe going through the motions of an election and blaming people who treat their votes seriously and ignore the LP. It is not putting its policies into effect by others being elected. It is anti-intellectual, imitative 'cargo cult science' as described in physicist Richard Feynman's famous Caltech 1974 commencement address entitled "Cargo Cult Science".
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/...
"In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennashe’s the controllerand they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land."
Still, I'll keep my four years from now options open, though.
Some charismatic Libertarian super star may soon reveal him or herself.
Doubt it.
The idea of voting for another Bush really turns my stomach, though.
Re: “As everyone else knows, the election will decide whether Trump or Clinton will be president. The outcome makes a difference.” The 1980 election decided whether Carter or Reagan would be President. The outcome made a difference. Ayn Rand chose to abstain. Was she wrong to do so?
Re: “It is mindless, annoying and irrelevant fantasy doing nothing to discuss, let alone solve, real problems.” Okay, how do you propose to solve the “real problem” of two totally corrupt political parties controlling the political process? By continuing to vote for their candidates?
The National Monument scam, its history, and its purpose need to be better and more widely known and understood before the laws can be changed despite the viro lobby. Obama violated and/or ignored several laws in decreeing the monuments in corrupt collusion between the pressure group activists, the Federal agencies swarming with viros, and his direct political appointees.
It is not a choice in the election. It is not a result of ignoring the irrelevant Libertarian Party. It is a result of the culture of collectivism and Pragmatism, which the Libertarian Party does not understand and is not dealing with.
As everyone else knows, the election will decide whether Trump or Clinton will be president. The outcome makes a difference.
The "Libertarian Party" is not a "real choice" in the election, and the two LP clowns pretending in their PR stunt do not represent civilized, rational individualism and are no spokesmen for it. Stop fantasizing and stop hijacking threads on the forum. It is mindless, annoying and irrelevant fantasy doing nothing to discuss, let alone solve, real problems.
The LIbertarian Party's predicted history of overwhelming rejection is not a conspiracy, it is a consequence of what it is. Stop blaming this on "evil" people like us who refuse to abandon reality on behalf of mindless and irrelevent publicity seeking.
As Flootus5 knows, the anti-private property viro pressure group lobby has tried many times over decades to repeal the mining law allowing private mining claims but failed. That is why they are using the agency 'rule-making' process in conjunction with "endangered species" and other tools of misanthropic tools of nihilism entrenched and growing like a cancer inside government to rewrite the law themselves.
They can do it because they were appointed by Obama to run the Interior Department, where under mostly Democrat administrations, rule-making in the Code of Federal Regulations (now more properly called the CFP --Code of Federal Pens) has taken over legislative authority from Congress.
This is one example of why it is so important to keep Clinton out of the White House. Republicans will not abolish the Interior Dept or re-instate private settlement of Federal land or significantly reverse the "rule-making" legislative system, but they do hold back the radical progressive agenda to wipe out what is left of private property and to destroy industry for their eco-fascist utopia.
Flootus5 knows more than anyone else here what this means -- and exactly how and why -- for the survival of specific people personally targeted and the consequences for all of us in an industrial economy and for national security.
It is an example of how the election and stopping Clinton and the Democrats is so important even while we have for months denounced Trump as well as Clinton for good reason. There are degrees of statism, such as the difference between a Pragmatist businessman with 1960s implicit 'liberal' premises versus a thoroughly corrupt and dedicated ideological neo-Marxist tyrant. The difference is a matter of survival.
Else-wise you'd be looking at a 2 from the time of my post. .
Never thought I'd chase bandits off ewv's 6 o'clock but here I am.
The Gulch and way, way beyond it.
But Congress will not defund the entire Interior Department, and the overall downward trend will continue without longer term change in the philosophy driving all of it. Clinton means much worse much faster, but Trump is not a solution, only providing the possibility of affecting specific policy for those who want to continue living here in reality, buying more time.
The agenda of the Interior Dept. and EPA is being run by the viro pressure group lobby, which is getting away with murder because most people don't know what it is doing and what it is after. When Democrats control the Executive branch they appoint the worst of them to run the government, as they are now.
The sales pitch on behalf of the a-philosophical Libertarian Party telling us not to vote is not going to change the system we are in or the fact that one of Trump or Clinton will be power and that which one makes a difference to our lives and our future. Voting to make a difference is not an endorsement of the political system and is not "wanting four more years of unconstitutional statist expansion". "Voting" for the Libertarian Party fantasy will not stop it, and if Clinton wins it will become much worse faster. The rampant subjectivism of the Libertarian Party idolatry that hijacked this thread with its repetitive banging its spoon on the highchair while denouncing everyone else is astounding.
Load more comments...