Save Bryce Canyon from a proposed coal mine

I submitted the following to the Bureau of Land Management:

The adverse effects on recreational resources and the environment far outweigh the ostensible benefits of proposed mining in the Alton coal tract. I urge you to reject Alton Coal Development's proposed lease and not allow any additional coal mining near Bryce Canyon National Park or any park or on any public lands.

Oil, gas, coal, and nuclear should have been phased out decades ago. I have a difficult time with how utterly stupid the government has been and is still being concerning this.

If you are going to do anything that has anything to do with energy, make it clean and sustainable throughout the entire cycle.

When will greed not rule? When will sanity prevail?

Here's where I submitted it:

Save Bryce Canyon from a proposed coal mine

Bryce Canyon National Park is a unique, secluded park known for its expansive views, clear air and dark night skies.

But the Bureau of Land Management is on the verge of approving a massive 3,500 acre strip coal mine right next to the park1 that would operate 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, polluting Bryce's air, water and quiet seclusion.

Despite these significant concerns shown in BLM's own analysis,2 BLM has just proposed that the mine be approved. BLM is currently accepting public comments on its proposal and strong public opposition is needed to convince the BLM to reverse course and reject this dirty coal mine.

Tell the Bureau of Land Management: Don't allow coal mining next to Bryce Canyon National Park.

This surface mine would produce two million tons of coal a year, and The Bureau of Land Management's review identified more than a dozen negative impacts this proposed mine is likely to have.

These include air pollution, water pollution, loss of wildlife habitat, increased coal truck traffic and noise levels, adverse effects to recreation resources and an increased risk of fuel spills, solid waste spills and wildfires.

In addition to the problems the BLM identified, burning coal from the proposed mine would also be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, which experts say are now growing faster than previously anticipated worst case scenarios.3

National Parks and federal lands belong to all of us, and BLM needs to hear from people who don't want these special recreation areas and wildlife habitats --- especially not Bryce Canyon -- to be endangered in order to mine for dirty coal.

Tell the Bureau of Land Management: Don't allow coal mining next to Bryce Canyon National Park.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.