Trump Overhauled The Way We Prevent Wildfires And The Media Totally Missed It

From the article: “President Donald Trump moved forward with policies aimed at preventing catastrophic wildfires while the media breathlessly covered the government funding battle.”

Trump should tell the Democrats he is not going to sign any bill that does not contain funding for the southern border wall. Nancy better make a deal or she isn’t going to get anything she wants until she funds the wall. The Democrats will start getting nervous here in the next week or two. Stick to your guns, Donald. Shumer and Pelosi will eventually fold. Shumer says if Trump wants to fund the government then Trump should give up the wall. Trump should say to Shumer that if Shumer wants the government open, he should fund the wall. What’s more unreasonable, shutting down the government in an effort to increase security on the southern border, or shutting down the government to make the U.S. less safe by not funding security measures for the southern border. My choice for most unreasonable is those who want to make the U.S. border less safe by refusing to build a wall.

As for forest thinning being a give away to the forest industry, what’s wrong with building up the logging industry?

Make Logging Great Again!

“While litigation activists thwarted forest management reforms, the Senate also failed to pass legislation to help minimize forest fires,”

In bushfire-plagued Australia, the Greens have consistently argued against mandatory hazard-reduction burns to reduce fuel build-up in forests and called for authorities to take into account “the environmental constraints and needs of our native forests”.

Incomprehensible to me that ‘idealism – politics’ wins above rational common sense.

Interesting how global warming sneaks into every narrative these days. For years the established, monopolized, dishonest main media has trickled the fraudulent, global climate change, alarm into the subconsciousness of the people (Social Engineering). It has been taken as a fact by activists, such Denise Boggs and the group Conservation Congress. without question. 95% of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than anyone alive today has ever experienced, and much of it had lower CO2 levels than today. Watch climatologist Dr. Tim Ball

I do sympathize with those who claim that it is illegal for the Federal government to change the timber policies on Federal lands. I also sympathize with those who claim that current timber policies on Federal lands are both suicidal and illegal in large parts. That’s because both groups make compelling arguments that stand on a flawed premise — that there is some Constitutional construct that allows for a significant portion of our nation to be Federal lands.

The Federal government is specifically empowered to do several things in the Constitution, and for it to do anything else is forbidden in several places and reinforced in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The bulk of those allowed things are enumerated in the 18 Clauses of Article I, Section 8 — http://www.americanusconstitution.com/article1section8.html . [There are a few others sprinkled within the Constitution, but not many and not broad. IIRC, there’s something about the maintenance of Federal Courthouses in Article III. Anyone wishing to go spelunking and provide a list should certainly do so.]

Clause 7 states that the US may establish post offices and post roads — and I’d grant that interstate highways are “post roads”. Clause 17 states that the US is responsible for the District of Columbia. Clauses 12/13/14 establish an Army and Navy, which could be held to imply that military bases are legitimate Federal lands. Clause 5 establishes Federal Mints, so those could be legitimate Federal lands; it also provides “to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” — and I’d be inclined to add in a substantial amount of Federal land under the control of the FDA for food safety inspections, laboratories, and even cultivation of standards to regulate the purity of food and drugs.

But I’ve seen nothing within the Constitutional enumerated powers that would require a Bureau of Land Management to regulate cattle grazing on Federal lands — because those lands should not be Federal. There shouldn’t be Secretary of the Interior regulations on forestry management for Federal lands — because those lands should not be Federal [who logs a post office, interstate, mint, military base, or FDA lab?].

Although I’m quite fond of most of our National Parks, National Monuments, and such……they’re an unconstitutional statutory land grab and should be devolved to the states unless a Constitutional Amendment is ratified to allow such a construct.

And, it is not to be forgotten, a large part of this mess has been driven by a policy of the US subsequent to the Civil War — that no state be accepted into the United States without ceding a large proportion of its land to the Federal Government. That would be the same Federal Government that has no Constitutional basis for controlling any such land. https://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/map-showing-stunning-extent-of-federal-controlled-land/

The huge red swath through WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, NM, CO, AK…..post offices? military bases? FDA labs? Or unconstitutional land holdings?

And, just for an amusing side note……much of this is valuable, useful land. If you auctioned it off, how much of a dent would that make in our $22T National Debt?

Wow, dead dry branches, leafs, needles and other debris lights and burns more easily and hotter than living, hydrated green plants. Who would have ever thought that?

Un-ban wood stoves in CA. Rural people there are generally poor and would gather up all the dead wood.

Now get ready for the “bait and switch”. Environmentalists will reluctantly concede that fewer trees and controlled burns will reduce wildfires. However they will argue that controlled burns should only be done with a consideration of “appropriate safeguards”.

Firstly of course, you must consider if the area has any “vulnerable species”, so an ecological botanist and biologist should be there to over see the fire. Then you should consider if any native American sacred sites or artefacts may be in danger and so representatives of the appropriate department should be on hand. And so on and so on.

This means that for purely logical and non emotional reasons you will need to co-ordinate a dozen “experts” from 6 or 7 departments to ALL be available for several days before the burn can proceed. As this is borderline impossible, the burns do not happen and another wildfire ensues. The environmentalists then hold their hands up and say “But we support controlled burns. with the proper safeguards of course. So it’s not our fault”.

That is the Australian lesson. Do not let them do the same thing to America.

President Trump stated November 19th

We’re going to make it better. We’re going to make it a lot better. And it’s going to happen as quickly as it can possibly happen.

In just over a month he delivered policies that can alleviate the worst consequences of future wild fires, whatever the cause.
The who state that increasing severity of wild fires is down to climate change cannot deliver even in the unlikely the event of them being right. That is because, after over two decades of trying, they do not have the power to control global emissions. There are lessens for policy-makers in what can be controlled and what cannot. Despite not being Trump’s greatest fan, the President has shown far greater wisdom than the liberal climate alarmists.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2018/12/27/camp-fire-california-lessons-in-the-limits-harms-of-political-action/