|
Post by vegasjames on Mar 22, 2023 19:18:25 GMT -5
Biden just converted another 500,000 acres of Southern Nevada, which includes a lot of mineral rich mining areas in to the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument. Look at this map of Southern Nevada showing hoo much land is off limited to rock hounding because it is monument, preserve, recreational area, etc.
In 2016 under Obama, another 300.000 acres of Southern Nevada was converted in to the Gold Butte National Monument.
Most of Nevada is already controlled by the military, and they are getting ready to do another land grab in Northern Nevada that will take over more prime rick hounding and mining locations including Wonderstone Mountain, Dead Camel Mountains and Earthquake Fault.
And it was just recently another large chunk of land was taken running from Downtown Las Vegas to Indian Springs 40 miles North of Las Vegas to form the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument.
It is not just Nevada. California formed the Mojave National Preserve, which is not protecting any animal or plant. The area encompassed nearly every old mine in the area initially to make sure none of these mines can be reopened. Then just a couple of yeas ago, the Mojave National Preserve was expanded in another major land grab of more than another 22,000 acres to encompass more mines in the area that included an active claim gold mine.
These are just a few examples of the land grabs going on that are taking away to access to freely use these lands.
Why is this an issue and why should you care? These land grabs are almost exclusively rich mining areas blocking access to our own mineral reserves. This is making the U.S. more dependent on foreign entities to provide metals to the U.S. For example, lanthanum not too long ago was running around $30 a pound. The Chinese now control the lanthanum market and therefore the price has jumped to over $600 a pound.
The only rare earth mine I know of in the U.S. is just over the Nevada-California border in Southern California off the I-15. Who owns this mine? The Chinese. That cannot be the only location where rare earths are found, but all the land around the mine has been taken and placed in to preserves and monuments such as the Mojave National Preserve and now the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument. Without any control over our own resources we are completely dependent on foreign entities for metals essential to technology and they can sell the metals for whatever price they want. Metals are to the military like gasoline is to the average citizen. We have to pay the price. And what if the Chinese for example decide to cut off their sales of these metals to the U.S. How will we build things such as weapons for our defense among other things. These land grabs are weakening the U.S. and making us highly vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Mar 22, 2023 19:24:30 GMT -5
You are so correct. The issue of rare earths should concern everyone. It hits us right in wallet and decreases our independence and National Security.
|
|
|
Post by realrockhound on Mar 22, 2023 20:31:21 GMT -5
But don’t worry… you’ll still pay taxes that go into that preserved land one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Mar 23, 2023 1:19:57 GMT -5
You are so correct. The issue of rare earths should concern everyone. It hits us right in wallet and decreases our independence and National Security. Make me so mad because the BLM is doing everything they can as well to block mining. Several large areas around here with some nice copper mines have been leased to several gun ranges out here, who have blocked access to the land even though it is still technically BLM land, which makes that illegal.
Other mines they have suddenly hit with million dollar reclamation fees putting them out of business.
And they are finding other ways to make it virtually impossible to open old mines back up unless you are extremely wealthy to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by hummingbirdstones on Mar 23, 2023 10:18:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Mar 23, 2023 10:28:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jasoninsd on Mar 23, 2023 15:26:43 GMT -5
vegasjames - I'm poking fun at you...but not in a mean way! - I see the title of the thread is "...raidly" losing..." rather than "rapidly losing". I found that interesting...since in effect the word "raid" really would work with what you're talking about!
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Mar 23, 2023 16:13:53 GMT -5
In 1995, miners discovered a large copper deposit 7,000 feet beneath the sacred ground. From 2005 to 2013, congressional supporters of Resolution Copper introduced thirteen different bills to give Oak Flat to Resolution Copper in a land exchange. Each bill failed. One bill sponsor, Representative Rick Renzi, was convicted for soliciting a bribe from Resolution Copper to support the land transfer. In 2013, Resolution Copper published a “General Plan of Operations” for a mine at Oak Flat. The next year, a looming government shutdown gave mine proponents their chance. Minutes before the midnight deadline for the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, Arizona Senators McCain and Flake attached a rider authorizing transfer of a 2,422-acre parcel including Oak Flat to Resolution Copper in exchange for about 6,000 acres elsewhere. Rio Tinto, the majority owner of Resolution Copper, was a regular donor to McCain’s campaigns. Flake had worked as a Rio Tinto lobbyist. The rider revoked the presidential orders protecting Oak Flat from mining, and directed the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper “[n]ot later than 60 days after the date of publication of the final environmental impact statement.” The Forest Service estimated that the FEIS would not be ready until summer 2021. But that timeline changed after President Trump lost. In December 2020, the Department of Agriculture announced the FEIS would be published the following month. Officials admitted they pushed up the deadline because of “pressure from the highest level at the Department of Agriculture.” The FEIS was published January 15, 2021, triggering a deadline to complete the transfer no later than March 16, 2021. The Government says it may transfer the land as early as March 11. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/cases-of-interest/2023/03/01/02-23-2021-Emergency-motion-for-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf Renzi was convicted in 2013 of extortion, bribery, insurance fraud, money laundering and racketeering for using money from clients of his insurance agency to fund his campaign and for trading his vote on a proposed mine in exchange for a land deal. James Sandlin, a former business partner of Renzi’s, was convicted with Renzi on public corruption charges in the deal.
Among other charges against Renzi, prosecutors said he pressured the owners of a proposed copper mine to buy property owned by Sandlin – without revealing that Sandlin was a former business partner who owed him $700,000. At one point during the negotiations, court documents say Renzi told one of the mining company officials, “No Sandlin property, no bill.”
After a 24 day trial with 45 witnesses, court records say Renzi was convicted by a federal jury on 17 counts, including public corruption, insurance fraud and racketeering, and Sandlin was convicted on 13 counts of public corruption.
On appeal, one of the arguments Renzi raised was that his conviction violated the congressional speech or debate clause, which protects lawmakers from arrest outside the Congress for their legislative activity. A federal appeals court rejected the claim, noting that, “Congressmen may write the law, but they are not above the law.”
Renzi was sentenced two years in prison and two years of supervised release. He was released from prison in 2017.
In one of his last acts as president, Donald Trump … pardoned two Arizonans, including former Rep. Rick Renzi who was convicted of extortion, racketeering and other charges while representing the 1st District in Congress.
cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2021/01/20/trump-pardons-former-rep-rick-renzi-for-fraud-extortion-convictions/
From the Arizona Chamber of Commerce amicus brief: THE APACHE TREATY OF 1852 AND THE LACK OF LAND HELD IN TRUST EXHIBIT NO “CLEAR EXPRESSION” OF ANY RIGHT TO OAK FLAT. As noted, the U.S. Government owns Oak Flat outright. It does not hold it in trust or as restricted land on behalf of any tribe or tribal individual. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims ipse dixit that a treaty right to the land exists and that the land is held in trust for the Apache. Opening Brief of Apache Stronghold, 47. In doing so, they misapply McGirt v. Oklahoma. First, no such trust involving the Oak Flat land exists. Just as “Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation,” so too courts do not “speculate about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that it never faced.” There is no reason to believe that this land, transferred by the Mexican Government to the United States in 1848, is encumbered by treaty rights of the Apache, and the claim must be denied. When the U.S. Senate ratified and President Fillmore signed the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe with the Apache Nation of Indians, it stated that “the government of the United States” will “designate, settle and adjust their territorial boundaries.” No support exists for Plaintiff’s vague assertion that Oak Flat has been placed in trust or that it should have been. In fact, Plaintiff does not even attempt to offer any evidence that its trust claim is “in accordance with the meaning [it was] understood to have by the tribal representatives at the council.” No evidence exists, in the record of this case or in the treaty or in the Congressional record, that Oak Flat was placed in federal trust on behalf of the Apache as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151. Oak Flat is not within a reservation. Nor is it a dependent Indian community. And there is no evidence that it is an Indian allotment. The brief of amici, the Mennonite Church and the Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference, seems to recognize the lack of a tribal trust right to the land, yet suggests that there exists some sort of “easement” by adverse possession. No evidence of an easement or adverse possession, however, exists and such a position cannot be supported. Citing United States v. Mitchell, Plaintiff alternatively claims a “general trust relationship [exists] between the United States and the Indian people,” requiring a generic duty to protect the land on behalf of the Plaintiff. Yet again, no record exists of a possessory interest or trust right to Oak Flat. Instead, it is land received directly from the government of Mexico in 1848 and is owned and controlled exclusively by the United States government. Congress possesses the ability to sell it under its Article IV authority to “dispose of the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” U.S. CONST. Art. IV, § 3. Congress has enacted the appropriate legislation to do so. Plaintiff’s claim of a trust relationship is both incomplete and incorrect. Plaintiff is entitled to no relief. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/cases-of-interest/2023/03/01/01-23-2023-Arizona-Chamber-of-Commerce-and-Industry-amicus-brief.pdfen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Flat_(Arizona)www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases-of-interest/apache-stronghold-v.usa/
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Mar 23, 2023 16:23:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Mar 23, 2023 17:48:53 GMT -5
vegasjames - I'm poking fun at you...but not in a mean way! - I see the title of the thread is "...raidly" losing..." rather than "rapidly losing". I found that interesting...since in effect the word "raid" really would work with what you're talking about! Thanks for catching that. Fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Mar 24, 2023 11:26:11 GMT -5
"Public" anything only means us when a politician is running for office and says it in a speech, it's really a slush fund held in real estate to enrich politicians and their cronies, FDR learned a lot from his distant cousin Teddy who removed OUR homestead land from the people. I know it's controversial here to say that government should not own the land that we all have hounded on and that states, counties or individuals should control it instead, but it is pretty clear to me that our founders saw it that way.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Mar 24, 2023 19:58:47 GMT -5
"Public" anything only means us when a politician is running for office and says it in a speech, it's really a slush fund held in real estate to enrich politicians and their cronies, FDR learned a lot from his distant cousin Teddy who removed OUR homestead land from the people. I know it's controversial here to say that government should not own the land that we all have hounded on and that states, counties or individuals should control it instead, but it is pretty clear to me that our founders saw it that way. Another thing that irritates me is that the BLM will do land grabs, hold on to the land for a while then sell it off to developers. Then they grab more land and repeat the process.
|
|