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 2.
I still hold that it represents the fundamental ideas which made our nation great and which - if we return to them - can do so again. Yes, with the changing times have come political changes. That's the whole point! Progressives didn't take control all at once - they steadily undermined freedom bit by bit. But to say that a move in the opposite direction isn't possible?
Pessismists never change the world. I choose to believe and advocate for change and return for Constitutional values.
As for the issue of “hijacking”, I have not initiated any conversations about the Libertarian Party. If you attack the Libertarian Party in your own thread, it is reasonable to expect that others are going to defend it.
http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_i...
And you wonder WHY we need a Convention of States? Government just became the largest employer in our country surpassing manufacturing for the first time in our history; The Department of Education holds our states hostage withholding funds (that we paid) for not mandating Genderfree bathrooms; The Presidents wife demands certain cerals be removed from the marketplace. Its TIME folks...If not US then who?... If not NOW, then when?...Wait for the Tyrannical Federal Government to devour the Civil Society or join us. Visit here to learn more, sign the petition, and volunteer: http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_i...
Throwing away a vote to a fringe party exploiting the election for a publicity stunt is not participating in the election, which is to determine who will be president. It won't be Gary Johnson and nothing he does will change that. No "future historian" will see CBJ's "one more vote" or care.
A vote can't be "meaningless" for every candidate except their publicity stunt. They repeatedly tell us through a contorted rationalization that our vote doesn't matter but they want it for themselves. 'Your vote doesn't matter so vote for me'.
Voting in the election to make a difference where it matters instead of following a hopeless fringe, anti-intellectual publicity stunt is not "pragmatism". Ayn Rand was not a "pragmatist" when she urged a policy of "anti-Nixonites for Nixon" to stop McGovern while objecting to Nixon, and she was not a "pragmatist" when she rejected the Libertarian Party on principle even when deciding not to vote for one of the real candidates. You don't seem to know what the philosophy of Pragmatism is or why Ayn Rand denounced the Libertarian Party, which she explained many times. Her ethics were concerned with living in reality, not Pragmatism, and not hopeless fantasizing -- with or without the pandering to pot heads and ignorance of foreign affairs -- in the name of "idealism" without regard to means to ends.
Voting for a candidate where it makes a difference within a limited choice where that is all that is possible is not a "failure to learn from history". Anyone who has learned anything from history knows that Hilary Clinton would be devastating for our lives. Throwing away votes for a fringe party publicity stunt does not change what the elections are, have been, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future.
We did not make them that way and you will not change it. Libertarian Party fantasy does not change what the election is in fact about or the fact that the limited choice is imposed on us, not our "responsibility" for not following you. Your accusations of "refusal to take responsibility" for not going along with you are offensive. It is false sophistry and morally reprehensible. Stop smearing people in moral intimidation to manipulate us into giving up our votes for your attention seeking.
If I did not already know the history of the Libertarian Policy, the repetitive nonsensical sophistry, slogans and offensive accusations trying to manipulate people through hijacking this thread, while evading all objections, would be more than enough by itself to not want anything to do with it. But I do know what the Libertarian Party is and will not sanction it, let alone sacrifice to it. It does not represent Ayn Rand, as she explained extensively, it does not represent me, and it is not relevant to this thread.
Load more comments...