The Green Machine

THE GREEN MACHINE

“Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready.”
Theodore Roosevelt

The conservation movement was started by President Theodore Roosevelt.   He established 150 national forests; 51 Federal bird reserves; 4 national game preserves and five national parks.  How did he see these national resources being used?

“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”  “The New Nationalism” speech, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910

The founder of the environmental movement, a conservative himself, saw conservation as both the use and protection of national resources.  This has been lost to the liberals who have hijacked conservationism and twisted it into the blend of socialism, religion and environmentalism.  Their dogma is the certainty that human interaction with the environment, in all cases, is bad.

We now face an alliance between the left leaning professors at major universities, who are paid through government grants to “research”, and the environmental groups who seek a specific outcome from this research.  Simply review some of the published comments from some of these professors on suction dredging.  It’s opinion published as research.  True science seems to be lost in the environmental fervor.  All they need is the leader of the cult to exclaim some pearl of wisdom such as “Save the Polar Bears” and their followers blindly drink the kool-aid.  Research and science is tough work, why bother when we can simply speculate that something is bad and without any evidence run off and attempt to ban it.  It’s simply a vocal minority attempting to impose their will on the public.  They get away with this because no one is looking.

Oh, and about those drowning polar bears?  In 2006 Dr. Charles Monnet published an article on polar bears drowning in the Arctic Ocean which led to a massive environmental campaign to “save the polar bears.”  Charles Monnet, according to ABC News article dated 28 July 2011 has been placed on administrative leave pending charges of scientific misconduct.  Did anyone challenge his statements at the time?

With half the rivers in California proposed for closure under the new Department of Fish and Game regulations it’s worthwhile to understand who these people are.  Let’s take the case of the Yellow Legged frog, an animal most of us had never heard of prior to this.  The Center for Biological Diversity has heard of them.  According to the CBD’s website they maintain the world’s largest database of endangered species.  Protection of the frog has very little to do with the frog, their interests are green: the color of money green.  Apparently the Center for Biological Diversity discovered that filing endangered species lawsuits is easy money.

The Center for Biological Diversity

In California alone the Center for Biological Diversity filed 149 court cases over ten years.  The CBD and other environmental groups filed 247 court cases in California.  Across the West the total number of court cases filed by environmental groups was 896.  That’s 896 court cases filed by environmental groups over a ten year period.  Where does the money come from and how possibly can governments keep up with the court cases?  Clearly governments can’t keep up with the court cases, but the sheer magnitude of their filings influences governments to negotiate and settle, at the expense of industry and of course citizens.  These groups use the slimmest thread of science to file the suit, and then wait for the government to miss response deadlines and file for attorney fees.  Nice work if you can get it.  Unfortunately the Equal Access to Justice Act doesn’t cover those of us who are simply the targets of the lawsuit.

Ultimately, we the taxpayers, the people who actually work and support the government are funding the  Center for Biological Diversity.

You would expect the people in pursuit of this “noble” endeavor – saving biological diversity, to have some education in let’s say biology or ecology or something that would reflect their understanding of the science behind the environment.  Let’s do a quick check of the Center for Biological Diversity from information drawn from their website:

1.  Kieren Suckling, Founder of the CBD holds a Masters in Philosophy.

2.  Robin Silver, Co-Founder is a retired medical doctor.

3.  Sarah Bergemen, Assistant Executive Director, Bachelors in Anthropology.

Of the 59 people they list as staff, 22 of them are attorneys.  One might think that an environmental group would be out protecting the environment, but it’s clear from the ratio of attorneys to staff that they are busy filing lawsuits.  Can you picture any other legitimate business that has almost 50% of their workforce as attonneys – other than a law firm?  Why not rename themselves as the Center for Biological Lawsuits.

How does a group of people without any education in biology be such experts in saving endangered species?  They are simply taking advantage of yet another government welfare system called the Equal Access to Justice Act which allows a group to sue the Federal Government, and if they win they can recoup legal costs.  The CBD has discovered that the government will pay them even if they don’t win so filing a lawsuit, any suit for any endangered species is a great way to make money, of course at taxpayer expense.  The same reimbursement arrangement exists in California.  File a suit – get paid.

Did dredging cause the demise of the frog?  There is not a shred of evidence to support the closure of the rivers listed in the draft CDFG regulations.  According to Dr. Roland Knapp, a leading researcher on the Yellow Legged Frog, the California Department of Fish and Game is largely responsible.  The stocking of non-native trout has decimated the frog population.  Apparently introducing non-native trout for the benefit of fishermen is not a “Significant and Unavoidable” impact.  Rather than stop stocking trout, and eliminate the non-native trout the solution is to ban dredging although there is no evidence that a suction dredge has ever harmed a Yellow Legged Frog.  Did you know the California Department of Fish and Game stocking program is exempt from Environmental Impact Reviews?

 Sportsmen United for Sensible Mining Coalition

This group was active in the fight against dredging.  Nice sounding name, if not a bit long.  Who are these guys?  Would hunters really sell out the miners?  No, it didn’t happen.  When you pull the tax form on the Sportsmen United against mining you’ll find they are actually the National Wildlife Federation.  An organization which reported annual income of $98M.  The Sportsmen United was just a shell to give the appearance of hunters and fishermen against dredging.  If their case is so pure why not stand up and be known by your name?  What do they have to hide.

This naturally leads to the question what is their purpose?  If not protecting the environment where are they going with this?  It’s a good question and we must first start with the concept that socialism assumes the elite know what’s best for you.  Suction dredgers represent a thorn in their side.  It’s far more valuable to take EPA money to “remediate” the mercury than to recover the gold.  Our mineral rights include the mercury, so how do they get around this?  They declare suction dredging illegal, then only the government will be able to operate suction dredges in the river and receive the largess of the Federal government for mercury remediation.

We have an existing Environmental Impact Report proving suction dredging is harmless.  How could this change in only fifteen years?  According to the California Environmental Quality Act the standard to determine a significant impact is based on the current conditions that exist – that is the baseline.  Why then did the SEIR based the significant and unavoidable findings as if dredging had never existed.

Our position is clear – we have a right to mine, we have a right as Americans to pursue our chosen profession.  We have legal standing and rights that are protected as Americans, we don’t have to bow and scrape and take what rights they determine for us.  We will stand and fight this agenda.  Don’t give up your claims.  If mercury is present on your claim then it is a valuable mineral and you have a right to it based on your claim – not the State of California, or the US EPA.  If the government wants to remove that mercury, then they need to pay you for the rights to do that.

Don’t give in, don’t back down.  We’re the last of the free people, don’t let them take this freedom from you.  We are among the few people that can produce real money from our toil.  This troubles a lot of people, if we are producing gold, platinum and silver this threatens the paper money supply.  Remember the value of gold is not measured in dollars, the value of the dollar is measured in gold.  Simply this means the value of that one dollar bill in your wallet is worth only 1/1700 of an ounce of gold or about five minutes of dredging.  The paper is backed by nothing but faith.  Gold is backed by gold and your hard work.

Monde Labe

Here is a link to Congressman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) Discusses the Government Litigation Savings Act in the Congressional and Senate Western Caucus weekly address:

Leave a Reply