Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Environmental Extremism category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Environmental Extremism’ Category

It was inevitable that enviroterrorists were bound to shut down the Enbridge Pipeline hearings. It finally happened when DFL-supporting protesters shut down the Duluth hearing.

The foundation for the protest is exposed in the article when it says “Tribal and environmental groups say the project threatens pristine waters where wild rice grows.” The assumption is that every drop of water must be pristine. Implicit in that assertion is that people’s needs must always take a back seat to ‘the environment.’

This article highlighted the enviroterrorists’ tactics when they reported “The evening hearing at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center was marked by one interruption after another despite pleas from Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Ann O’Reilly. ‘We’ve gotten through 13 hearings without this baloney,’ she said. ‘Now, stop it.'”

These rioters aren’t interested in being reasonable. They’re interested in shutting down infrastructure projects out of spite. It’s time to teach them that treaty rights don’t trump everything else. There’s no reason why those lands shouldn’t be subjected to the takings clause of the Constitution, which says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Further, under eminent domain the “property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.”

It certainly can be determined that replacing the existing pipeline with a newer pipeline will increase public safety and protect the environment. This woman isn’t too bright:

Ashland’s Sheila Mitchell said she opposes using oil from Alberta’s tar sands. “I also think it’s ridiculous to be putting a line this close to Lake Superior or any of the Great Lakes,” she said. “Anything in the Great Lakes watershed is a very dangerous proposition.”

There’s already a pipeline there. I read tons of articles each day. Until a couple years ago, I’d never heard of Enbridge. If they’ve been irresponsible, I would’ve heard about it. These enviroterrorists would’ve highlighted the company’s safety record. The PUC would’ve rejected the project immediately.

That hasn’t happened, which tells me that these enviroterrorists are just whining for the sake of whining. This video proves that these enviroterrorists don’t want the public’s voice to be heard:

Technorati: , , ,

Thank God for President Trump’s regulators. After years of neglecting the riff-raff that serve as regulators, President Trump is installing a new breed of regulator. I’m certain it’s a shock to the environmental activists who’ve ruled the roost the last generation. That’s why it’s essential to clean out the barn and install new regulators that believe in the rule of law and the Constitution.

One of the people who’s likely to be a new regulator is a Wyoming woman named Karen Budd-Falen. It’s likely that she’ll be “the next leader of the Bureau of Land Management.” According to the article, “Budd-Falen has worked extensively for private property owners, agricultural operations and local governments.” Trent Loos, a Nebraska rancher and the host of a radio show Rural Route, said of Budd-Falen “There’s no doubt why people who oppose multiple use and following the law as it’s written would be opposed to Karen Budd-Falen. She believes in the Constitution the way it was written that guarantees multiple use. Not just rancher use but multiple use.”

Later, Loos said “It’s important to point out that she was railing on the BLM when (the Obama Administration was) against multiple use. That’s why she was raising a stink. We’ve had administrations moving away from multiple use not maintaining it. That’s why she went after the BLM so many times.”

That’s why we should expect lots of theatrics by the Democrats. Think of her as a tough-as-nails female version of Scott Pruitt. Needless to say, environmental activists are freaking out:

“This is probably one of the worst picks he could possibly come up with to head the BLM,” explained Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “She’s very ideological, and does seem to be completely offended by the concept of federal lands,” he added.

What’s funny is that the Sierra Club is upset that Budd-Falen is using the same tools that environmental activists have used against power companies:

But Budd-Falen’s approach was to destroy Ratner and Western Watersheds through this nuisance lawsuit accusing him of trespassing. She hardly even tried to hide her intentions, reportedly bragging in 2015 to a group of ranchers that “one of the funniest things I’m doing right now” is that she “figured out a way to sue Western Watersheds Project.”

How is that different than MCEA suing the investors of the Big Stone II power plant? Back then, Paul Aasen bragged about his tactics:

Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.

We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.

These environmental parasites don’t care about the environment. They care exclusively about their extremist agenda.

They’re just upset that someone’s using their tactics against them.

It’s indisputable that past presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments. The worst presidents in terms of misusing the Antiquities Act were President Obama, President Clinton and President George W. Bush. It’s fair to say that each of those presidents misused the Antiquities Act to sidestep the original intent of the law. Rob Bishop’s op-ed highlights how past presidents have essentially ignored the law in creating national monuments.

In Bishop’s op-ed, he wrote “A few statistics can illustrate the scope of the overreach. Between 1906 and 1943, the law functioned basically as designed. Presidents respected the intent of the act. Most monuments were smaller and had clear boundaries with real antiquities inside them. By contrast, designations under the act last year averaged 739,645 acres, or more than 47 times the size of those created 110 years ago. President Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to use the act. He used it 18 times for a combined total of 1.5 million acres. President Barack Obama used it 37 times to designate 553.6 million acres of land and water.”

Chairman Bishop didn’t just complain about the problem. He’s proposed a solution:

Last week, I introduced legislation to correct these failures and permanently address my colleagues’ concerns. The National Monument Creation and Protection Act would, like the writers of the Antiquities Act intended, allow the president to unilaterally designate land up to 640 acres. Monument designations between 640 and 10,000 acres would be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Designations between 10,000 and 85,000 acres would be required to obtain the approval of all county commissioners, state legislatures, and governors in the affected area. The bill also standardizes and limits the president’s power to reshape monuments.

Chairman Bishop’s legislation is well-written and desperately needed. Unfortunately, there’s no chance it will pass. That’s because it will get stopped by the Democrats’ filibuster in the Senate. Their environmental activist friends will insist that the bill be stopped.

That’s because these environmental activists want big, unaccountable government. These activists are almost always Democrats, though a handful are Republicans. These activists have proven time and again that they prefer it when government tramples over people in favor of the ‘greater good’ of saving Mother Earth. These activists don’t like the rule of law. Here’s proof:

In 1996, prior to the designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah, Clinton’s then-Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty stated the following, “I’m increasingly of the view that we should just drop these utah [sic] ideas. we [sic] do not really know how the enviros will react and I do think there is a danger of ‘abuse’ of the withdraw/antiquities authorities especially because these lands are not really endangered.”

If McGinty’s name sounds familiar, it’s possibly because she ran for Senate in 2016 against Republican Pat Toomey. Thankfully, Sen. Toomey defeated her. But I digress.

It’s disheartening to see Democrats trample over the law. It’s especially disheartening that Democrats do that for a few extra campaign contributions. That’s how cold-hearted Democrats are. This is what’s most disgusting:

The monument was designated in the waning months of Clinton’s re-election campaign. Its total acreage: 1.7 million — three times the size of Rhode Island. No town halls, no public meetings, and no public comment sessions were ever held in Utah. No input was solicited from local stakeholders or land managers in the area. Utah’s governor, congressional delegation, public officials, and residents from across the state all expressed outrage at the lack of prior consultation or warning of the designation. In what feels like symbolism, the proclamation wasn’t even signed in Utah; it was signed in Arizona.

That’s the opposite of transparency. That’s proof that Democrats don’t like accountable government.

Since Hillary’s defeat, Democrats have tried proving that they’ve closed the enthusiasm gap with Republicans. If I got $100 each time I saw or read an article that predicted Democratic victories in special elections that didn’t happen, I’d have a fat retirement account. This article highlights how little Democrats understand about the people they’d like to represent.

The article starts by saying “Democrats have been given an enviable political landscape, with an opposition president at a historically low approval rating and scandal besetting his White House. But they risk potentially blowing it due to a lack of central leadership, diffuse organizational structures and disputes over tactics and issues.” In the next paragraph, the writer writes that “That’s the fear that some top officials harbor as they gear up for the 2018 elections: that the party has yet to learn its lessons from the 2016 cycle; that a horde of newly organized political groups are drawing money away from party infrastructure; and that a lack of a singular leader has complicated the need for a centralized message.”

Actually, what’s hurting Democrats the most is the lack of an appealing message. It isn’t that Democrats didn’t get their message out. It’s that their message isn’t appealing. I’ve argued that Democrats have gone too far pandering to the environmental activist wing of their party that they’ve alienated main street. Here’s something that illustrates that point:

As if you didn’t have your fill of liberal tomfoolery this week, check out what the Dayton administration is up to over at the Pollution Control Agency.

This summer, they are spending time and taxpayer resources shaming you, the taxpayer, into dumb and impractical ideas to reduce your carbon footprint this summer, such as these ideas for hosting:

BYOP (bring your own plate)
Provide reusable or compostable plates, cups, silverware and linens, or ask your guests to help contribute dishware! Using reusable and washable items is always the best choice whenever feasible.

Drink up
If you provide separate recycling containers for empty cans and bottles, you can go one step further by buying bulk-size containers and asking guests to bring reusable cups or mugs.

You’ve got mail
Elect to email invitations when possible to reduce paper waste. It’s also a great idea to tell your guests in the invitation to bring their own food for the potluck or dishware, or at least to share how sustainability is a goal of your event!

Pass the ketchup
Buy condiments in bulk to avoid those pesky individual wrappers. Buying food in bulk is an easy way to create less packaging as well!

Bring a doggy bag
Remind guests to bring reusable containers so they can take leftovers home. Otherwise, you can gather the leftover food and take it to a compost drop-off site.

Normal people don’t think like this. The more often that the DFL puts this stupidity out there, the more likely it is that they’ll keep losing elections. The key driving factor in the Democrats’ defeats isn’t the enthusiasm gap. It’s the ‘These people are nuts’ gap. Here’s a perfect example of the Democrats’ foolishness:

The Left has once again peed into the wind and declared it a refreshing rain shower.
This week, protesters from the infamous Take Action Minnesota showed up on the doorstep of Congressman Jason Lewis’ private home to protest, taking full credit for their despicable actions by livestreaming the event and later taking victory laps on social media, much less refusing to apologize for trespassing on his private property (yes, a concept foreign to these people) and disturbing his and his neighbors right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property.

The paid professional leading the protest exhorted the assembled trespassers to disturb the congressman’s family and neighbors. “We are here to make sure the Congressman Lewis’ neighbors know exactly why we are here. So let me hear you cheer, let me hear you cheer so loud that the entire community here will hear us and know exactly why we are here,” she yelled. The trespassers left the neighborhood chanting “We’ll be back.”

If you see TakeAction Minnesota’s logo, run:

Let me rephrase that. If you see TakeAction Minnesota activists in your neighborhood, don’t run. Run fast.

If Democrats don’t start acting like normal people, they’ll keep losing.

Kevin Cramer’s WSJ op-ed on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is must reading if you want the truth about what’s happening in North Dakota. Predictably, what’s happening isn’t getting reported by the so-called MSM.

In the opening paragraph of his op-ed, Rep. Cramer said “[a] little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the ‘prayerful’ and ‘peaceful’ protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.”

It’s important to know that the Democrats that are trying to prevent the pipeline from getting built are either eco-terrorists or they’re anarchists. This doesn’t have anything to do with protecting the environment. (More on that later.) This has to do with pushing their mean-spirited anti-civilization agenda.

Later, Rep. Cramer writes “This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government.”

As for protecting the environment, that’s a myth:

This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

Hardline Democrats that support this protest include President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders. This isn’t something that only the Democrats’ far left fringe supports. This is pretty much ‘mainstream’ within the Democratic Party.

Here’s the other thing that we shouldn’t forget about DAPL:

Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.

That’s a detailed way of saying that the ecoterrorists’ riots are a total sham. As I said earlier, this doesn’t have anything to do with tribal rights. This doesn’t have anything to do with the environment.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One thing that can’t be disputed is the fact that militant environmentalists don’t think through the tactics they’ll use to pipelines from getting built. For instance, this Mother Jones article includes a quote from Debbie Sease, the senior lobbying and advocacy director at the Sierra Club about the things they’ll do to stop legal, permitted pipelines from getting built. She said that “her organization’s strategy lies in playing defense by filing legal challenges, galvanizing the public, and using the marketplace. If a coal field is going to be developed, for example, activists can make it as expensive as possible to comply with existing regulations and force the developer to deal with a public backlash, she says. Additional tools environmentalists can use include citizen lawsuits, grassroots organizing, and ballot measures at the state and local level focusing on everything from renewable energy standards to green transportation initiatives.”

It’s important to note that that’s just part of the Sierra Club’s tactics. This article isn’t about the Sierra Club. Still, it’s another organization working to prevent pipelines from getting built:

PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE, Man. – A Manitoba indigenous chief says there’s a desire for action – which could include blockades of Canadian pipelines and railways – in support of a protest against a North Dakota pipeline project.

Grand Chief Terry Nelson of the Southern Chiefs Organization says chiefs and others attended a meeting Saturday at the Dakota Tipi First Nation near Portage la Prairie to discuss how to react if the U.S. government clears demonstrators from a camp occupied by the Dakota Access pipeline protesters.

Nelson says one option includes blocking access to pumping stations along a pipeline operated by Enbridge, which has plans to acquire a stake in the U.S. pipeline project. After the meeting, Dakota Tipi members held a pipe ceremony on the Trans-Canada Highway near Portage la Prairie, Man., temporarily blocking a lane of traffic.

The thing to keep in mind about these protests is that they aren’t about stopping global warming or the environment. The DAPL got all of its permits before starting construction. They did what the government required them to do.

These protesters are part anarchist, part fascist, part authoritarian. Their respect for the rule of law is virtually nonexistent. That’s clear considering the fact that the company that’s building the DAPL has been attacked daily. These anarchists are violent, too.

It’s time to tighten up laws, too. Environmentalists convicted of committing violence should be imprisoned for a mandatory 5 years and fined $10,000 if they’re caught protesting on pipeline property. Let them know that there’s a price they’ll have to pay for disrupting legally permitted things.

On Saturday, I wrote this post about this Mother Jones article. The MJ article quotes Debbie Sease, the senior lobbying and advocacy director at the Sierra Club. Ms. Sease was polite enough to explain how Democrats kill mining and construction jobs. She said that “her organization’s strategy lies in playing defense by filing legal challenges, galvanizing the public, and using the marketplace. If a coal field is going to be developed, for example, activists can make it as expensive as possible to comply with existing regulations and force the developer to deal with a public backlash.”

Ms. Sease apparently didn’t pay attention to the election. In battleground state after battleground state, voters rejected environmental activists. They turned the formerly blue states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into purple states. The only backlash in sight is against the Sierra Club and other like-minded organizations. Thoughts that there will be a pro-Sierra Club backlash is wishful thinking.

Ms. Pease then noted that there were other weapons available to environmental activists:

Additional tools environmentalists can use include citizen lawsuits, grassroots organizing, and ballot measures at the state and local level focusing on everything from renewable energy standards to green transportation initiatives.

If you’re thinking that this sound like the DFL’s script for killing PolyMet and the Sandpiper Pipeline project, that’s because it’s the script that the DFL followed in attempting to kill PolyMet and the Sandpiper Pipeline project. That’s why the DFL constantly fights for additional layers of bureaucracy. They use those additional layers to petition government to kill projects with 1,000 paper cuts.

If

you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Paul Aasen admitted it in an op-ed published 8 years ago. I wrote this post to highlight the quotes from Paul Aasen:

Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.

We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.

This time around, the administrative law judge ruled in our favor, saying the utilities had proven the need for, at most, 160 megawatts and had failed to prove that coal would be the least expensive way of providing the electricity. The Minnesota PUC approved the transmission lines into Minnesota, and we filed an appeal that is pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

That’s what attrition looks like. That’s why I titled the post “Attrition, not litigation.” At the time that this op-ed was written, Aasen was the executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. MCEA’s goal was to force investors to spend millions of dollars in court. That’s how they make cheap energy sources expensive. That’s why everyone’s electric bills keep getting bigger.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gov. Dayton is certainly liberal but he certainly isn’t a constitutional scholar. According to this Strib article, Gov. Dayton got a little testy with North Dakota for winning a lawsuit regarding the Next Generation Energy Act, aka the NGEA. Unfortunately, the lawsuit won’t cause the NGEA to be voided. The good news is that the Supreme Court will make short work of this.

The NGEA imposes restrictions on other states by banning Minnesota utilities from “signing deals to import coal-generated electricity.” It’s entirely unsurprising that “North Dakota sued and won on the grounds that the law constitutes a trade barrier between the two states that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.”

Specifically, that restriction is forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal government the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The text is clear. States aren’t allowed to put restrictions on other states that might hurt that state’s economy. Allowing Minnesota to dictate to North Dakota what it must do or can’t do is, essentially, taking over another state’s sovereign authority.

BONUS QUESTION: How would Gov. Dayton react if North Dakota’s governor signed a bill into law that forced Minnesota to build a pipeline across northern Minnesota?

Gov. Dayton didn’t just expose his lack of constitutional expertise. He went on another diatribe:

He said North Dakota has “its head in the sand,” and that Minnesota would continue to litigate to protect air quality.

What’s especially delicious is this statement:

Dave Glatt, head of the environmental health section for the North Dakota Dept. of Health, said his state is one of just a handful meeting all ambient air quality standards established by the EPA. He said roughly 25 percent of North Dakota’s total electric generation comes from wind and hydroelectric power, both non-carbon sources. Total carbon emissions are down 11 percent below 2005 levels despite the Bakken oil boom, Glatt said. He acknowledged the carbon intensity of the Bakken oil boom but said Minnesota has benefited from the boom. Oil prices have plunged in part due to a rapid rise in supply in places like North Dakota.

Gov. Dayton, stick that in your stovepipe and smoke it.

I applaud Stewart Mills for putting this ad together:

Here’s the ad’s transcript:

It seems that Rick Nolan has based his campaign on attacking me for having long hair and a family that started a successful business. Well, I don’t apologize for either one. But politicians like Rick should apologize for using our tax dollars to make themselves, and their friends, even richer, raising their pay, sending our tax dollars to Wall Street bankers and trade deals that reward outsourcers while killing Minnesota jobs. I’m Stewart Mills and I approve this message because I’m on your side, not their’s.

Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats insist that Nolan’s on the side of the people of Minnesota’s Eighth District because he isn’t rich. Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats insist that Stewart Mills can’t be on the side of the people of Minnesota’s Eighth District because he’s rich. What utter dishonesty.

  1. When Rick Nolan sided with Twin Cities environmentalists to oppose final passage of a bill that would streamline the federal permitting process, that wasn’t proof that Nolan was on the miners’ side.
  2. When Rick Nolan proposed building a mining institute, that wasn’t proof that Nolan was on the miners’ side. It was proof he wanted to spend money on something that wouldn’t help create mining jobs.
  3. When Rick Nolan and Nancy Pelosi fire off a steady stream of ads about Stewart Mills’ wealth, isn’t that proof that they don’t want others to be wealthy?

The American Dream is to help the next generation have it better than your generation. Stewart Mills’ family built a business that’s created jobs with great benefits while saving people tons of money through cheap prices in great locations.

Mills Fleet Farm is successful because the Mills family identified a need for rural Minnesota, then built a region-wide chain of stores that caters to rural and exurban shoppers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota. I’ve always thought that Mills catered to people who work with their hands on their farms, their vehicles and their back yards.

If Stewart Mills is as out of touch with Minnesota’s Eighth District, why is Mills Fleet Farm the biggest retail chain in the district? If Mills were as out of touch as Nolan, Pelosi and the Democrats insist, Mills Fleet Farm wouldn’t be the expanding retail chain it is.

There’s another question Eighth District voters should ask. What do Rick Nolan and Nancy Pelosi have in common? ‘San Fran Nan’ wouldn’t know a thing about Minnesota’s Eighth District. She couldn’t identify with the Eighth District’s culture. She certainly hasn’t approved of the Eighth District’s pro-life and pro-Second Amendment views. She’s as pro-gun control as any member of Congress. She’s as pro-environmental regulation as any member of Congress, too.

Rick Nolan voted with Nancy Pelosi to allow the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from unilaterally rewriting the Clean Water Act without an act of Congress. That doesn’t sound like something the mining industry would approve of.

Rick Nolan voted with Nancy Pelosi in opposing making America energy independent. That’s foolish considering how cheaper energy prices would make the Eighth District industries more profitable and more likely to keep people employed.

Nolan and Pelosi voted to let money appropriated to the Defense Department to be used to implement “climate change assessments and development plans.” Jim Oberstar was defeated because he voted for Cap and Trade. Nolan’s voting record is more green than Oberstar’s.

There isn’t any doubt which candidate is more in touch with the Eighth District’s people. Stewart Mills, the man whose family owns the biggest retail chain serving rural Minnesota, is more in touch with Eighth District voters than Rick Nolan, the guy who voted a) against energy independence and b) for greater government interference with Eighth District businesses.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Based on Sen. Klobuchar’s and Sen. Franken’s statements in this MinnPost article, it’s safe to say that Minnesota’s DFL US senators just flipped the Iron Range’s DFL legislative delegation the proverbial finger. When pushed about mining, here’s Sen. Klobuchar’s statement:

“While every project must undergo a thorough environmental evaluation, I am concerned about adding this additional impact statement when there is already a process in place,” she said. “I will continue to work with the Forest Service on this issue.”

It sounds like Sen. Klobuchar’s statement was written in coordination with Sen. Franken’s statement:

“Mining is a great Minnesota tradition, and so is protection of our environment and natural resources,” he said. “There’s no question that we need to take into account the environmental impact of any proposed project, but Minnesota and the federal government already have rigorous processes in place to make sure that happens. There’s no reason to have an overly burdensome process. I’ve been talking with the Forest Service about this issue and I will continue to engage them.”

Apparently, these DFL senators don’t give a rip about miners or their families. If they did, they’d raise holy hell with the EPA and the Wildlife Service.

If Sens. Franken and Klobuchar cared about miners, they would’ve introduced legislation to push the approval process. They would’ve made the fight public. Instead, they’re keeping the issue on the back burner. Frankly, they sound like annoyed politicians who’d rather ignore the issue.

That’s important because this is isn’t just any issue. The prosperity of the Iron Range for the next 30 years hinges on whether precious metal mining is approved. If it isn’t, Iron Range families will drop further behind the rest of the state in terms of median household income and percentage of people living in poverty.

The time for urgency on precious metals mining is now. All public signs, though, indicate that the DFL isn’t treating this issue with the urgency it deserves. In the past, if an issue was important to the DFL leadership, they’d start a high-profile media campaign to highlight their cause du jour. Within a week, everyone would know about the DFL’s cause du jour because they’d fire up their media operations.

During the push for higher taxes in 2009, the DFL pushed their misery tour. Within a month, the DFL held high profile meetings in every part of the state. Each meeting was held in the city with that region’s biggest newspaper and biggest city.

When Friends of the Boundary Waters and Conservation first opposed the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects, they launched a high profile website to trash precious metal mining. By comparison, Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar responded to the Iron Range legislative delegation with a document that essentially said ‘Whatever.’

That certainly doesn’t tell Iron Rangers that this is a priority with Sens. Franken and Klobuchar. Apparently, Sens. Franken and Klobuchar only believe in the “fierce urgency of now” when it pertains to Obamacare. Apparently, that isn’t their mindset on trivial things like Iron Rangers making a good living for their families.

It’s time for the Iron Range to flip the DFL the bird. The DFL, especially the Metrocrats, have been flipping the blue collar workers of the Iron Range the bird for 10 years on precious metal mining. It’s time the hardworking people of the Iron Range got their mines, not the shaft from the Metrocrat DFL.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,