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.
###
It can't be done in 30 second sound bites for those who want to understand. What else you say in a restricted context may and should be some essential point, but it can't stop there and we can't copy the left's exploitation of irrationalism, dishonesty and ignorance with their contempt of human understanding and independence, which defeats the purpose of a rational society.
Reading Ayn Rand on anything is nothing like reading obscure philosophy like a Kant or Hegel, and her work (even on epistemology) is enjoyable and filled with advocacy for human value. But look at the influence the Kant and Hegel types ultimately had. And Leonard Peikoff's books were not written for academics, he said once that he wrote them (and rewrote Ominous Parallels) so a truck driver could understand it. (That is true, but it is much harder reading for academics steeped in rationalism and explicit bad premises.)
The common person isn't interested in the intelligentsia of the approach - at least not at first. The common man very much wants a cause to believe in. Politicians understand this - especially progressive ones. They tap into that ignorance and drive to believe and twist it to their own ends. They have that tag line - that "hook" as they call it in marketing - and they use it to reel people in. Objectivists need to come up with something similar. "Who is John Galt?" almost works, but the normal person can't relate to John Galt. It needs to be something short and gets people thinking.
"The action required for that is intellectual."
To a degree, yes. But I think there is one other major part that also must be addressed: that the other person must believe that there is a benefit to change. It's all fine and good to advocate logic as the rationale for a policy or principle, but change always involves an action of faith: that a change from what has always been done to something new will effect a positive net change.
Fundamental change in ideas does not result from particular battles against specific policy, even when successful. It only slows the downward trend in politics, making the specific battles harder and harder, and eventually impossible.
Reversing the political trend requires first reversing the irrationalist, altruist, collectivist philosophical ideas dominating the culture. That can only be done by replacing it with a philosophy of reason and individualism. The action required for that is intellectual. Slogans about the "states" "taking back" anything, or calling for the tradition of the Constitution do not do that.
I agree, but that doesn't happen without action. That's why your words confuse me. They are filled with "nothing is going to change" yet you admit that without action, nothing will change. Belief alone doesn't institute change, but that belief is the mandatory precursor to actual change, because one has to believe in a possible outcome before one invests time or resources into making it a reality. If there is no belief, there will be no resulting action. And without action, there is no change. You can call it cheerleading if you want. I call it reality. ;)
I have engaged in more political action than you can imagine, and don't need amateur cheerleader lectures. Some policy can be impacted with sufficient means and knowledge, though the trend is down. The trend will not change without fundamental change in the accepted ideas of the culture.
The Interior Dept. just unilaterally shut down mining across 10 sparsely populated states, wrecking people's lives. There is no "over development". What is the standard for "over"?
Condoning this abuse in the name of "conservationism" overtly sanctions the sacrifice of people to misanthropic, nihilistic nature worship. The unowned lands in the west were supposed to be settled and claimed as private property, not nationalized and subsequently locked up under eco-fascism.
Pessimists never take action, being content to allow others to decide their course for them. One can choose to give up, or one can choose to vote for and advocate for change. I'll advocate for a return to sanity until insanity descends and starts weeding people out. I intend to be prepared either way. And if it comes for me it will still find me advocating for a return to the Constitutional principles this nation was built on.
The Constitution has been politically made increasingly irrelevant because its very purpose clashes with the predominant progressive mentality of collectivism and statism. The country was founded on the Enlightenment emphasis of reason, individualism, and freedom; The Constitution was limited in its role to the specific means to organize government to do that. The goal was taken for granted.
Appealing to the Constitution today falls on deaf ears of those with a fundamentally different idea of what government is for. That is why traditionalist appeals to the Constitution by conservatives are hopeless as a political and philosophic premise, with no principled explanation of why government should be limited to specific functions and what they are.
Individuals and states can politically fight specific battles like these Federal land grabs and often make some headway, but the downward trend is very bad. No one ever stopped a National Park takeover or Endangered Species Listing by pronouncing his appeals to the Constitution while fervently believing. When we have a large and powerful movement ideologically committed to exploiting Federal power to impose preservationism, and practically everyone else pandering to it as if "environmentalism" were a Holy Word, it isn't enough to say 'take back the Constitution'. The same goes for the rest of the growing tyranny.
1) how do we know that the state plans work?
The claim is that it already has worked or is working, if the survival and health of the sage grouse population is the standard. The Interior Dept had previously agreed to allow the state approach, which arose in opposition to and as an alternative to a threatened controversial Endangered Species Listing under far more draconian Federal controls. The Interior Dept has reneged on the agreement and is imposing Federal control in an ad hoc manner, not calling it an Endangered Species Listing. The states are objecting to the power grab without regard to the effectiveness of the state plan and the previous agreement.
2) how do we know that the federal plan will not work?
It depends on the criterion for "works". It probably would preserve the species, at the expense of sacrificing people more. Since both are the criteria and goal of the viro movement, it would "work". Whether the particular species population expands isn't relevant since they are primarily after preserving the entire "ecosystem" "protected" from humans.
3) how can we possibly know which would work better?
Under the viro goals the Federal plan "works better" because it is more restrictive on people, i.e., misanthropic nihilism is easier to achieve with more draconian controls from the Interior Dept. For an example of how this premise destroys people see the post by forum member Flootus5 on this same page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The state plan trying to at least partially protect people is a result of the combination of pandering to the viro premises and a very real limit on options under the imposition of raw Federal power and the political lobbying and voting power of viro activists within the state as the states are held hostage to Federal control.
4) since when did the various governments get this much control over land use?
The Federal Endangered Species Act passed Congress in 1966 under pressure from the early viro movement in the US, then called the "ecology movement". For a description of the political process by one of its supporters see Roderick Nash, The Rights of Nature. For an analysis of the 'ecology movement' in the early 1970s see Ayn Rand Return of the Primitive. For a comprehensive summary of the power and goals of the viro movement and its organizations see Ron Arnold's Trashing the Economy.
5) with hundreds of species becoming extinct each day, who made the decision to put the welfare of the sage grouse over that of humans?
They are political decisions made nominally in the US Fish & Wildlife Service under the political appointees of the president and lobbying and activism by the viro pressure groups, including both outside lobbyists and activists entrenched inside the government as protected civil servants. The presidential political appointments are selected from the viro activists. The decisions are made and token species selected to maximize sweeping 'habitat' controls despite political resistance. This is called "science". The damage varies over time depending on who is in the White House. The problem has been much worse under Obama and Clinton-Gore and would accelerate under Hillary. Under Bush-II political appointees Gale Norton and libertarian Lynn Scarlett, the programs expanded in the form of 'free market environmentalism' subsequently becoming the basis of the alternate 'habitat' plans such as this one.
When you go to a Constitutional Convention, you start, quite literally, with a clean sheet of paper ... and a lot more trust in the the good intentions of men than I think is warranted.
1) how do we know that the state plans work?
2) how do we know that the federal plan will not work?
3) how can we possibly know which would work better?
4) since when did the various governments get this much control over land use?
5) with hundreds of species becoming extinct each day, who made the decision to put the welfare of the sage grouse over that of humans?
Load more comments...