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 5.
Libertarian ideas are the most relevant things in this election. Loyalists held control of the colonies for decades and American revolutionaries were "irrelevant" until enough brave rational people supported their claims for individual liberty in defiance of the statists of that era. Libertarians are irrelevant to you, but brushfires are growing in many young minds that will make the statists you support irrelevant. Every vote for Gary Johnson adds to the fire of liberty.
All part and parcel of the same agenda, subjugation of the masses........
Again you propose actions that have failed in the past and you refuse to learn from that history. You also refuse to take responsibility for those mistakes and their effects. The rest of your commentary is baseless, insulting, beneath you, and undeserving of reply.
Also please tell me how voting for Gary Johnson "isn't participating in the election." I go into the voting booth. He's on the ballot. I vote for him. His vote totals are counted and reported. How is that not participating? My vote will have exactly as much influence as yours on the outcome of the election - i.e., none at all. But future historians looking at the 2016 vote totals will see one more vote for liberty and against the two-party system than if I had cast a meaningless vote for one of the candidates the "major" parties had seen fit to foist on us.
Votes matter when they are counted and the total is more than the opposition, which determines who won the election, not how many votes for nothing that you add up after years of not participating in the real election. No establishment politicians have modified their actions because of fringe LP votes.
The people who are having an impact on specific policy are those who know how the system works and actively work to influence it on issues they know about to be able to talk intelligently about them and know what to do about it. That does not include fringe Libertarians engaging in pretend politics with floating abstractions and goofy sophistry every four years to vote for them because votes don't matter -- now on behalf of the likes of has-been 'liberal' Republicans like Johnson and Weld with a soft spot for getting high on drugs and abdicating the field of foreign policy, all supposedly in the name of a free society based on rational individualism -- if that is what these "Libertarians" want at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vide...
And voting does matter, just not in the way you describe it. By voting for my principles, my votes over the years have had far more impact than if I had allowed the two “establishment” parties to dictate my choices. By voting Libertarian, I am adding to the vote totals of the only party that supports individual freedom. And those vote totals matter – the establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections.
The arguments for supporting the Libertarian Party are increasingly bizarre. Now are told that it is helping Trump, as if voting for the LP instead of Trump takes votes away from Clinton. That leftist potheads might find the LP more attractive is no argument for the LP as the road to reform.
I agree that voting Trump is not what the vote is for.
Toward that end, he happens to be all that's left.
I preferred Ted Cruz, though he managed to turn me off shortly after I voted for him in the primary.
Those who want to make a difference don't pretend that it doesn't matter. The two parties battling for votes certainly know it, which is why they are spending hundreds of millions in voter drives and campaigning. Telling people that voting doesn't matter so vote for my fringe party, where it would also not matter, is just stupid.
You can "feel comfortable" with a fantasy vote if that's what you want, but it isn't participating in the election. If you don't know enough about the candidates to understand the difference and how it matters, then don't vote, but the rest of it is subjectivist sophistry outside the realm of the election.
To compare that with the anti-intellectual Libertarian Party and its isolated election year antics is a joke.
You can expect the current system to become worse, not because of "two parties" but because of the intellectual forces driving both of them. Copying them in election formalities and expecting anything different than fringe status in opposition to the status quo is indeed cargo cult science.
To understand the history of what the Fabians and their surrogates did intellectually and politically, based on a pre-existing intellectual basis in the culture, see
Martin, Fabian Freeway
Dobbs, Keynes at Harvard
Cole, The Story of Fabian Socialism (written by one of its long-time leaders)
Me dino didn't really mean YOUR reality.
Shoulda worded that better.
Your “cargo cult” example applies more to the Republican and Democrat parties than to the Libertarian Party. Every four years we go through all the formalities of an election, but we’re missing something essential, because nothing really changes regardless of which of the two major party candidates wins.
Load more comments...