Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[mojo84]

I do not know much about it. I've seen a couple of comments saying the rule only went into effect in January. There are still many EPA and other laws, rules and regulations still in place.

I don't believe it's an open authorization to dump toxic material in and pollute the environment.

[2farnorth]

.....snip...' .

I don't believe it's an open authorization to dump toxic material in and pollute the environment.

You can be sure the msm will report it as a terrible atrocity

[Skiprr]

Trivia of the morning: Only because I was browsing around and looking at available domain names last night, I couldn't help but think about the POTUS news conference yesterday. So you know I had to check VeryFakeNews.com.

It was registered just before Christmas by a guy in Latvia. Go figure.

[bblhd672]

This is a Fox News story, not one from the Sierra Club.

You are incorrect sir. This is an Associated Press story published on the Fox News website. Unfortunately, Fox News publishes many stories written by left leaning organizations/reporters like Associated Press and Reuters, so you always have to note where the story came from.

[Skiprr]

Regarding the reversal of the "Stream Protection Rule" (SPR) that the Obama administration pushed through on December 19, 2016, a small bit of Google gymnastics and much more reading seems to be required to get to the bottom of it (pun intended). Here's a link to a Google search that might be useful.

Of interest is that the SPR, when enacted on December 19, was to take effect in 30 days, as of January 19. Yep: one day before Donald Trump put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. And that (see below) it was overturned at record speed by bipartisan vote in both the House (with 71 cosponsors) and Senate two weeks before President Trump put his signature on it while coal miners and coal company executives visited the White House.

Doesn't quite jive with the implication of the AP headline "Trump Overturns Bill on Coal Mining Debris" does it? Never mind that it was never a "bill" and that Congress voted to overturn it. Ah, the New Journalism.

From what I can tell, the Stream Protection Rule (SPR) in it's present form was drafted in July 2015; evidently some version of it has been floating around (another pun intended) in some form or other for many years, promoted by environmentalist groups. There was push-back even in Obama's administration: the Department of the Interior stated outright that it would cause job losses, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement said it would cost the coal industry over $52 million in new compliance costs. U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Virginia) said that 78,000 mining jobs could be lost as a result of the SPR. West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are (were) most affected by the SPR. Griffith said he and others in Congress would work to see the rule overturned.

I will continue to fight this rule with every tool available, including, but not limited to, filing a Congressional Review Act [CRA] resolution. This rule is so unpopular that there will probably be many in Congress who will wish to lead this CRA resolution, and I will either join with other members to file a resolution or I will file it myself.

The CRA lets Congress overturn rules issued by federal agencies. After a rule is finalized, Congress has a limited period of time to pass a joint resolution to prevent the law from taking effect. Evidently the CRA was last used in 2001.

Industry has sharply criticized the science and justification for the rulemaking, arguing it is a drastic overreach of OSMRE [Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement] authority that encroaches on the jurisdiction of other federal laws.

Environmentalists say the rule does not go far enough, but coal mining states are nearly unified in blasting OSMRE's handling of the rulemaking.

Most states have withdrawn from cooperative agreements to work on the rule with OSMRE over complaints of being kept in the dark.

Congressional Republicans are already planning to strike down the new coal mining standards via the Congressional Review Act.

The SPR affects (affected) over 6,000 miles of streams and over 52,000 acres of forested area. It requires companies to restore streams, to replant native trees, to return mined areas to conditions as they were before mining took place, and to maintain a buffer zone that blocks coal mining within 100 feet of any stream.

The complete (and very long) text of the SPR can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ction-rule. That is, until/if the Federal Register takes it down.

But here's the deal. For all that the lamestream media tried to do to make it look as if shutting down the SPR was a POTUS executive order, that he acted unilaterally and without Congress...he did not.

The CRA to overturn the Stream Protection Rule was properly engaged and presented as House Joint Resolution 38 of the 115th Congress on January 30. It passed the House without amendment on February 1. It passed the Senate without amendment on February 2. It was presented to President Trump on February 6.

POTUS chose to sign the measure yesterday when he had coal miners and coal company executives--as well as some lawmakers from the most-affected states--at the White House.

Nowhere in the AP article, or in many of the lamestream articles that I looked it, was there ever any mention whatsoever that the CRA had bipartisan approval in both the House and Senate in the span of just three days, and that it did so two weeks before President Trump signed it. Instead, the media is spinning it as a heavy-handed, environmentally-destructive executive order that Trump somehow simply pulled out of his hat.

[mojo84]

Great work Skippr. Just further evidence we cannot take the lamestream press at face value.

We also need to read everything with a critical eye and use a high level of discernment when forming opinions based upon news articles. There is a media driven coup in the works and the intel community is helping them.

I noticed an article today by the AP about a memo regarding using the National Guard to round up illegals and deport them. We should all apply some critical logic and discernment before jumping to any conclusions or accepting it on face value.

[Skiprr]

The SPR affects (affected) over 6,000 miles of streams and over 52,000 acres of forested area. It requires companies to restore streams, to replant native trees, to return mined areas to conditions as they were before mining took place, and to maintain a buffer zone that blocks coal mining within 100 feet of any stream.

Ok, but.... I'm curious, why is that a "bad thing"?

I've got no dog in this hunt. I only continued to do some research this morning when it became clear that most media sources were flat-out misrepresenting how the overturn of the Stream Protection Rule came about, implying if not outright saying that POTUS was, unilaterally, repealing an environmental protection law that had already been on the books and by which mining companies already had to operate.

But it wasn't striking down a standing regulation. Congress struck down a new one that Obama approved which had only been in place for 11 days. Evidently the Department of the Interior’s own reports already showed that coal mining offsite impacts are minimal, and that mines are being operated in accordance with current federal and state regulations. So the SPR was a "global warming" type of thing--"Let's put new regulations in place now because some streams or land might be affected in the future"--a new bureaucratic regulation that addressed no identified problem, but was going to cost jobs and money.

Best I can tell from some quick notes I made, these were some factors Republicans and a number of Dems were railing over and why they wanted the SPR to be shot down....

No. Wait. I'm just gonna quote some stuff. My word-count about coal mining is already expended for the decade but I'll underline parts for emphasis:

• The National Mining Association December 19 press release about the implementation of the SPR can be found here: http://nma.org/2016/12/19/nma-strongly- ... ream-rule/

The president said in a previous statement the $1.2 billion stream rule “duplicates existing protections in the Clean Water Act and is unnecessary given the other Federal and State regulations already in place.”

“Because of the war on coal waged by the Obama administration, over 240 coal fired plants have closed and 83,000 people have lost their jobs,” West Virginia Rep. David McKinley said in a statement. “Fortunately, we finally have a partner in the White House who understands just how damaging these rules can be.”

Republicans argue it’s another duplicative, unnecessary rule form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Democrats and environmentalists say it’s needed to tackle global warming and increase revenues from drilling on federal lands.

“The contortions BLM went through to say they had the legal authority is almost embarrassing,” Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement on the CRA’s passing.

The OSM’s Stream Protection Rule is an egregious and unlawful example of federal regulatory overreach that infringes on the authority of state regulatory bodies, is wholly unnecessary, and will impact the livelihood of millions of Americans.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act instructs that States are to be the primary regulators of coal mining. In drafting the Stream Protection Rule, OSM failed to comply with these instructions, instead moving forward without real or meaningful involvement from the public or the relevant state agencies that are tasked with regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in the U.S.

The Department of Interior’s own reports show that essentially all coal mines have no off-site impacts, that lands are being restored successfully, and mines are being operated safely and in accordance with existing state and federal regulations. The Stream Protection Rule is simply a regulation in search of a problem.

It is also the case the OSM rule will have far reaching impacts on the American economy. The rule threatens one-third of the nation’s coal mining work force and would remove half or more of total U.S. coal reserves from future production. The rule would also drive up electricity costs for American consumers and could reduce state and federal tax revenue by over $6 billion annually.

This rule is supposed to replace a rule promulgated by the George W. Bush administration. At the outset of President Obama’s presidency, the Interior Department simply revoked the Bush rule, but a federal court blocked this action because it bypassed procedural safeguards. As a result, the Obama administration undertook a seven-year rulemaking, and the final stream buffer zone rule was issued during Obama’s lame duck session.

This timing raises an obvious question: If the Bush rule was so inadequate to protect the environment, then why did the administration spend so much time on the replacement rule? Further, the rulemaking itself was characterized by an unacceptable absence of transparency.

After reports regarding job losses connected to the rule made the news, the House Natural Resources Committee was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to oversee the rulemaking. The Interior Department even ignored subpoenas issued by the committee. Eight of ten states withdrew from agreements to cooperate on the rule because the Interior Department would not share key information, and the Interior Department subsequently ignored a letter from 19 states requesting that it re-engage with them on the rule.

By themselves, these procedural abuses would be sufficient grounds for lawmakers to prevent the Stream Buffer Zone rule from taking effect. But the rule itself is also bad policy. The rule would have a profound impact on coal miners and threaten one-third of the nation’s coal mining workforce.

The entire point of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is to sanction surface mining. But Obama’s rule would effectively preclude mining in much of the steep terrain of Appalachia—hitting this region’s economy the hardest. This is contrary to the law’s fundamental purpose.

Since 2009, the coal industry has declined, leaving workers and communities without a lifeline. Over 36,000 jobs have been lost without any relief in sight. From 2009 to 2015, American coal production has declined by over 177,000,000 tons, and over 600 coal mines have closed. H.J.Res. 38 will give coal country relief from these harmful regulations created under the Obama Administration.

According to the National Mining Association, as many as 78,000 coal mining jobs would have been lost if SPR was implemented, on top of thousands of jobs already lost during the Obama Administration. If jobs in fields related to coal mining are included, up to 281,000 people could have been put out of work, with an estimated 190,000 lost jobs in the Appalachian region alone.

[philip964]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-One.html

Trump gives a rally speech in Florida. News media seems to be upset Trump doesn't hold them in high regard.

Big news today seems to be the cost to the taxpayers to support security for the Trump family life style.

It was never news that Obama and Michele couldn't manage to take the same plane to Hawaii for vacation.

In this day in my life I was flipping channels and went to HBO just as they were showing Lena Dunham naked. Won't be able to unsee that.

[philip964]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/children-facin ... de-1607330

Middle schooler throws 2x4 at Trump motorcade.

[Skiprr]

In this day in my life I was flipping channels and went to HBO just as....

[philip964]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-new ... ht-w465311

Another major Trump accomplishment. Unfortunately not soon enough for my experience.

[bblhd672]

Today marks one month into President Trump's term in office.

[LucasMcCain]

Today marks one month into President Trump's term in office.

Thanks for the perspective. Can't believe how much has been accomplished in such a short period of time. We need a smiley with a MAGA hat or something.

[LucasMcCain]