Published: Monday, May 12 2014 4:52 p.m. MDT
Yes Mr Bennett. This is a complex, interconnected issue.It is good
that you recognize that. You write "While in the Senate, I looked for good
data. I talked to a lot of scientists"And maybe that is why you
are out of a job.You want to appeal to your base? Just hold up a
gun and shout "Drill Baby Drill".
Responsible people act responsibly. but Obama craves popularity. He gives the
people what he thinks they want, no matter what is best for the country. A small segment of Americans, who have friends in the media, tell him
NOT to allow the pipeline to be build. He listens to them because he knows that
they have friends in the media and that the media will report whatever those
vocal activists ask them to report. He's more concerned with what the
media will report than what is best for this country.We have more
oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than the rest of the world has - combined,
according to CBS News, May 11, 2012. Obama will not let us drill on
"government lands". The Constitution forbids the Federal Government
from "owning" that land, but that doesn't matter to Obama. What
he's concerned with is popularity, no matter how many people suffer.Scientist "think" that burning fossil fuel "possibly"
could "contribute" to global warming, but they know, without a doubt
that millions of Americans are out of work. Obama listens to the
"mights" instead of helping those who need jobs.
Talking to experts is one way of gaining information, but it's not
necessarily the best way.One thing I've noticed about academic
experts: they place a high priority on obtaining funding for their projects.
When a former member of Congress such as Bailout Bob says he's been talking
to experts, a warning flag always goes up for me. The advice I'm about to
hear is coming from someone who wants my tax money.It was the same
way with TARP. He got his information by talking with the people who wanted a
bailout.I'd be much happier to hear that he had done some
reading on a subject, from a wide range of sources. But he never mentions it.
It's always just talking.
Mike,I agree that the Keystone pipeline should be built. It is nice
to not have to toe any party line."The Constitution forbids the
Federal Government from "owning" that land"That is
blatantly and patently false.The Shale oil in the Green River
Formation is massive, no doubt. However this is not conventional oil and the
technology is not there at this point to economically recover this oil. I suspect that will change in the future.Also, that was not
CBS news. It was CNS news."Scientist "think" that
burning fossil fuel "possibly" could "contribute" to global
warming"The ultimate down playing of the scientific community
opinion. Do you consider your statement honest?
re: Joe, Let's look at what the Constitution says about
government ownership of land: Article I, Section 8, "To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"What is
economical? Is it better to spend $750 billion on welfare, or to provide jobs
where those on welfare become tax paying workers? Sorry about the
typo on CBS vs CNS. but the type didn't change the facts.Yes,I
consider my statement honest. There is only speculation from the scientific
community. No scientist can absolutely predict the weather two weeks from now,
much less two decades from now. There warnings are "substantiated" with
speculation of what might happen if everything required by the data set occurs
at the proper time and in the proper place.
So, the lousianna purchase was illegal and should have been prevented by the
constitution. Would that make sense? By the way, that happened under T.
Jefferson's presidencyMike, the founders were smart men. The
constitution is a framework with the ability to be modified and interpreted in
the light of changes that occur over time.The majority of the US was
at one time "owned" by the government. So, feel free to
quote the Constitution, but your interpretation appears to be in conflict with
those who wrote it.
Good grief Mike.... I love your passion.... but details is not one of the strong
points to your arguments. Obama has next to nothing to do with whether the oil
lying under the Green River Formation is economically recoverable. These
reserves have been known for a long time, but technology to economically recover
it haven't found their way to market yet. Right now the yields are
extremely low. According to the Utah Geological Survey, of the potential 1.3
Trillion barrels of oil there, only 77 billion are considered recoverable right
now.Don't mistake recoverable oil with total reserve estimate.
On average, maybe 40% are recoverable without going to extreme measures, like
injection, to increase yields. Yield rates and economics have nothing to do
with Obama... much to I am sure your dismay.But all that said, the
issue we currently have is we have two economies going on right now. One that
is dying a slow death, and those who rely on it are in deep despair. Prospects
are not strong for them. The other economy based on technology and global
markets is doing just fine. Any one-sided view on the situation ignores the
Well, at least now Bob Bennett is admitting that climate change is real. The body of research pointing to significant, economically devastating,
climate change is simply overwhelming. You have to make a concerted, willful
effort to plug your ears and close your eyes to the science in order to deny
it.Pay a little now to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels,
or pay a _lot_ later in taxes, insurance premiums, disaster cleanup, crop
losses, military conflicts, etc., - that's really the only choice before
us. Not doing anything is itself making a choice - albeit a short-sighted and
ruinously expensive choice.This is _not_ a call to lower
people's standards of living or shrink the economy! In fact, it's
just the opposite. We have an opportunity now to pursue new technologies,
re-establish ourselves as world leaders in innovation, clean up our air and
water and give our grandkids a better world in which to live. This absolutely
can be done - we just have to see past the PR machine of the oil & coal
industry who understandably hate the idea that the world truly does need to
begin moving away from their products.
re: Joe,You asked a valid question. What was the rhetoric about the
Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson, himself, doubted that the purchase was legal
under the Constitution.He believed that the Constitution did not authorize the
government to make land purchases. Those who wanted that land convinced him that
his authority to make treaties authorized the purchase.Think about
that. Think about what Obama is doing today. Think about how Obama is making
an end-run around Congress through the use of executive orders. Then, read the
Constitution, especially the part that ONLY gives Congress the authority to
legislate.As you said, the Constitution CAN be modified, but it has
NOT been modified - yet - to allow the government to own land. Jefferson did
not call for an amendment. He did an end-run.The federal government
may have purchased the majority of the land, but they had no legal authority to
"own" that land.The oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado does
not belong to the "government", but people suffer because the government
misuses authority.The government has paid scientists to
"find" a reason to tax us. That does not make the "facts" true.
Hey, why not just come out and admit that things are so much better, overall,
under Obama than under the prior Administration. I know Republicans are really
getting themselves twisted in tying to minimize success and find unique,
creative ways to criticize the President they vowed to destroy. The right wing
is in denial about a lot of things, not just about climate change.
“By trying to please both sides of a bitter controversy by issuing
separate statements aimed at each one, the Obama Administration has embarrassed
itself with both.”Really Bob? You are embarrassing yourself
with such a ridiculous statement. Both the announcement on
sustainable energy progress and the reality of climate change were made to the
same people, the American people.And yes I know, Republicans are
terribly jealous of the fact that oil and gas production has skyrocketed since
Obama took over, when Republican “pundits” had predicted just the
opposite, but facts are facts. Get used to it.Yes, Climate Change
is very real, and no, Obama is not advocating the “immediate end to
fossil fuels [that] would end civilization as you know it.”You’re complaining again, while offering no solutions. You’re mad
at Obama now because he’s led the nation closer to energy
self-sufficiency, and you’re mad at him because he recognizes climate
change as a reality.If the Dems had their way, this nation would be
investing heavily in alternative energy, but the Repubs won’t allow it.
What is YOUR solution?
@ Mike R... again, love the passion and commitment to a cause, but your opinion
on constitutional law does not make it law... it is just your opinion... one
that has been found to be wrong many times over by the Supreme Court of the US
over the last 200 years. So while you vigor is great, it is misplaced. You may
claim that you have deeper insight into constitutional law than all those who
have served since the John Jay Supreme Court, but unfortunately that
doesn't make what you think the law of the land. So until you succeed in
overturning over 200 years of precedent, your just going to keep getting more
frustrated.And unfortunately you can't sue to get the current
interpretation overturned, because you don't have standing in this issue.
You would need to represent the state. Perhaps you could run for office on a
platform of the agreement that incorporated the state of Utah as being invalid,
and the sue.... or support someone that will.But until you do get
the victory, figuring out how to get equitably and just access under the current
system is your best bet.
re:UtahBlueDevil,Personally attacking a poster does not make YOU an
expert on the Constitution. You make vague arguments, never substantiated by
citing the Constitution or Court cases that clarify an issue. Nothing you
posted proves that the Government can own land. Nothing===I agree with Bob Bennett. He leans towards thinking that climate change may
be impacted by what humans do. But, with the regulations already in place, the
United States is a minor contributor to CO2 emmissions. China is a major
contributor. Do you think that China will tax their people to reduce growth?
How about Mexico? Have you ever been to Mexico City? The Olympians wore maskes
to protect their lungs. What is Mexico doing to reduce CO2 emmissions? How
about India? As far as oil and gas are concerned, we have enough -
and to spare - but Obama, being politiclly motivated, has no interest in opening
those lands for drilling. He owes too much to those who fly around the world in
private jets, using thousands of gallons of oil, to ever create jobs for those
who can't afford private jets.
Obama has politicized law enforcement, racism and civil rights issues, class
envy, medical care, and the military.He may as well add "climate
change" to the mix.MOST polarizing president in history!
We need to rid citizens of the European view of the world, which is rooted in
foolish ideas like fossil fuels needing to be eliminated. I would wager any
amount that all those here responding are using fossil fuels in abundance, but,
of course, in true progressive patronizing fashiion, want everyone else to stop
using them! It is the typical big government knows best crowd that wants
everyone else to pay the bills and live with unjust laws, while they go on their
merry way. I'm all for going back to the dark ages, if that's what
everyone wants, but I ain't going there alone. In meantime, forego the
hypocrisy and stop talking nonsense. Climate change as a means to get more power
is not worthy of any citizen, particularly someone who most likely is otherwise
educated! If religion is a hoax, this ones rises above that in epic
@NateWell who else should he be talking to? The fossil fuel lobbyists?
People who aren't experts in the relevant field? Do you not trust doctors
when it comes to cancer diagnosis because they get their paychecks by having
@Mike Richards - Read Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution, the Feds can
own property, its very clear. The Antiquities Acts of 1095, enacted by the 59th
Congress expressively gives the President authority to preserve American
antiquities. A side note, this was Republican sponsored legislation.
Obama is trying desperately to save the train wreck called the 2014 midterms.And he is dangling every carrot he has in front of the voters.AmnestyStudent loansEqual pay for womenMinimum wageClean airWho knows what's next? Closing Gitmo? Bringing all the troops
home?Obama can throw out there anything he wants. Voters will buy it
if he says it. And he has no obligation to make any of it work. He's moving
out in January 2017.
Re: Mike--the part of the Constitution you reference has to do with DC and the
"purchase" of lands that already lie within a state. The lands in the
west currently owned by the federal government were federal territory before
congress approved new states. Also, as Senator Bennett pointed out, we are
producing more oil now in the U.S. than ever before--much of it drilled on
federal land. So while I understand that some people wish we had more drilling,
it is not accurate to say that "Obama will not let us drill on
f freak:No, Obama is not the most polarizing president in history.
It's just that the Republicans declared before he ever took office that
they would destroy him. So even when he pushes Republican ideas (see ACA) or
leads from a right-of-center position on many issues, the Repubs oppose him. The
polarization here is largely one-sided, largely disingenuous, and largely
self-destructive. I was a Republican until George W's second
term. He and Dicky C scared me away, and the current crop of tea-party-scared
GOPers have driven me so far from the Republican Party, I will never rejoin.
Their antiscience, antiwomen, anti-immigrant, antieverything platform is not
only extreme, it is irrational. And their war on the poor is shameful.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments