Monthly Archives: January 2022

Covering The Villages

Throughout Donald Trumps presidency and during most of the 2020 election, it seemed like The Villages made headlines every week. A picture was painted of lines being drawn in the sand, neighbor turning against neighbor, and even some threats of violence. But these events are very rare, especially when you consider the size of the community as a whole with more than 130,000 residents today and growing.

The claims by the media of The Villages being only a Trump-loving community are often blatantly false, some are outdated and others only have a grain of truth to them. The reputation may be related to the developer being a large contributor to Republican politicians; however, The Villages does not support a single political party but is home to residents with varying opinions. According to the Florida Division of Elections, as of Nov. 31, 2021, the number of registered voters in Sumter County (where most Villages residents reside) was 111,753, of which 56.4% were registered as Republicans, 22.4% were registered as Democrats, 1% were registered as as members of a minor party, and 20.2% had no party affiliation.

The media must cover this diversity and call out real sources of fraud. Three voters in Florida all living in The Villages were recently arrested for voting more than once in the 2020 election. They all voted for Trump two registered Republicans and one with no party affiliation. What these arrests actually show is that when would-be criminals try to cheat, the existing system can be strong enough to catch them and hold them legally accountable. And the public deserves accurate coverage, regardless of party affiliation. Where is that coverage?

Susan Koffman, The Villages

In early November 2021, the Supreme Court heard another case on your right to keep and bear arms. Not long ago the court ruled you had that right, but it never discourages liberals from wanting to limit your Second Amendment rights.

Liberals know they can continue to deny individuals their constitutional rights because no law enforcement officer is going to show up at their door with an arrest warrant because the Supreme Court has no power to compel politicians to follow laws they dont like.

The latest case involves two New Yorkers who claim, since the court has ruled, they have a right to own firearms and should not have to show cause as to why any more than any citizen has to show cause as to why they can exercise their right to free speech or practice their religion.

Judges discuss the historical context of our laws as to how they came about. Liberal politicians are going back to early English times and arguing that even though English citizens originally had a right to firearms, those rights were limited and, since our laws are based on early English laws, our rights should be limited also. Its called originalism.

If religious theologians can change some of the Ten Commandments, why cant progressives change the meaning of the Second Amendment? Today, the sixth commandment states, "Thou shall not kill. Originally it was, Thou shall not commit murder. Big difference.

Today, the 10th states, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. Originally it was, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods. In biblical times, a mans wife was part of his goods.

Normally progressives want to move away from originalism, encouraging liberal judges to draft new meanings to laws they dont like. Today, progressives are arguing the reverse. Will they succeed?

Sonny Heninger, Leesburg

Read more:
Today's letters: Readers comment on news coverage of The Villages and the Second Amendment - Daily Commercial

One of the predictions I was going to make for 2022 was that, given various frustrations from both the left and the right about liberal democracy and the progressives discrediting of the American Founders, we would start to see proposals to completely rewrite the Constitution or to replace it completely.

Well, this has already happened in 2021. See my July post Proposing a New Constitution. And the new ideas and the proposals keep coming.

As part of a series from the Boston Globe entitled Editing the Constitution containing many other suggested changes, Mary Anne Franks, law professor at the University of Miami, is proposing a rewrite of the first and second amendments to the Bill of Rights. In her article entitled Redo the First Two Amendments, she says that since speech and guns are such contentious issues today, we need to edit the Constitution so as to make the current guarantees less individualistic and less flawed in their conceptualization of what rights are.

Her suggestions are very telling about how progressive scholars are thinking about liberty and about human rights. To clarify the contrast between the language of the Bill of Rights and the alternative language she is advocating, I will first give the Amendments as they are now, followed by Prof. Franks new version.

Article I. 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.

Compare that with the proposed new version:

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.

The original is succinct and objective. Congress shall make no law respecting or prohibiting or abridging a series of specific actions or endeavors. The new version is subjective, focusing on expression. More to the point, it leaves out completely freedom of the press, apparently under the assumption that what gets published, either in newspapers or books, is personal expression, rather than efforts to find and record truth.

Even more to the point, notice how these rights and freedoms are open to restriction. Every person has the right to freedom of expression, etc., subject to responsibility for abuses.Questions on the matter will be adjudicated by the government: All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.Notice the invocation of a higher principle that will trump these rights: the principle of equality and dignity of all persons. As someone has noted, for progressives, the Equal Rights Amendment has a higher priority that the Bill of Rights, a notion enshrined in this revision.

But this is nothing compared to what Prof. Franks does with the Second Amendment:

Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.

She does away with the right to keep and bear firearms, turning it into a more generic right to self-defense. I suppose the implements that may be used to defend oneself must likewise be adjudicated. But she defines self-defense in terms of the right to bodily autonomy. From there, she creates a constitutional right to abortion!

Revising the Second Amendment so that it no longer protects gun rights but instead protects abortion rights is outrageous on the face of it. But the mindset behind doing so is extraordinarily revealing. Abortion is understood as an act of self-defense. In this way of thinking, a woman must have the right to defend herself with deadly force against the baby she is pregnant with.

Evidently, the baby has no right to bodily autonomy that might be balanced against the right of other people to the same. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole,but not to individuals, and certainly not to individual children.

The Bill of Rights rests on a specific set of assumptions, which are set forth in another founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Once these truths are no longer self-evident, when rights are not grounded in creation and endowed by the Creator, they are no longer unalienablethat is, incapable of being taken awaybecoming instead benefits granted by governments, and ultimately destructive of life, liberty, and happiness.

HT: Paul Veith

Image: Bill Of Rights by Nick YoungsonCC BY-SA 3.0Pix4free.orgvia the Blue Diamond Gallery

The rest is here:
Revising the First and Second Amendments | Gene Veith - Patheos

Second Amendment

Dont let the anti-Second Amendment crowd distract you from the actual problem we face with violence here in the USA.

We dont just have a gun violence problem here in the United States of America we have a people violence problem. Whenever people are using guns, knives, baseball bats, hammers, sticks, stones, vehicles, explosives, or poison to kill each other, it is never the fault of the method, or inanimate object used. It is always due to the common denominator; criminal minded humans.

Humans are very ingenious when it comes to harming their fellow humans. Humans are also very ingenious at skirting the law when they are so inclined. It is extremely foolish to try and control human behavior by controlling the inanimate objects used to commit crimes. Humans have been harming each other since we first appeared on Earth and will continue to do so long after guns, etc. have been replaced with more potent weapons. At this point all object control laws will be obsolete, but behavior control laws will not.

A criminal mind set is a character flaw and that is what needs to be controlled. The motive for any criminal act is a perceived reward. Remove that reward and replace it with an unwanted consequence and the criminal will be discourage from doing it.

The severity of the unwanted consequence is not what stops criminal acts. It is the surety of that consequence that does it.

Lets put our thinking caps on and make sure each criminal act results in an appropriate unwanted consequence for the criminal and only the criminal.

Catch-and-release is not working and repeatedly writing ineffective laws against inanimate objects while expecting a different result is insane.

Gerald W Hurst, Marion

The Dec. 8 edition of the Inter Lake included a story entitled No Permit, No Problem, about Montana joining the growing number of states allowing constitutional carry of guns. Some proponents of the permitless carry bill argue that people needing protection quickly do not have time to take an eight-hour class or wait through the permitting process. I believe that by eliminating the requirement for gun owners to take classes and undergo background checks to carry a firearm, the likelihood increases that unhinged people with easy access to concealed firearms will put law enforcement and citizens at greater risk of harm.

For example, a Helena court recently sentenced a Montana man charged with felony assault with a weapon and two concealed weapons charges. Police alleged that he got into an altercation with employees at a Helena restaurant when he was asked to wear a mask. He reportedly threatened the restaurant manager and employees, at one point patting his handgun and saying, Im going to get you.

Montanas attorney general Austin Knudsen told the Lewis and Clark County prosecutor to dismiss the concealed carry charges. Although the district judge strongly disagreed with Knudsens decision, he reduced the sentence to disorderly conduct, a $100 misdemeanor charge.

As another example, a year-old Inter Lake article entitled Flathead Man with Long Criminal Record Gets Prison Time, a local man stole an unlocked truck containing a handgun. During three reported confrontations, he used the handgun to intimidate and threaten individuals. He was eventually spotted by Montana Highway Patrol and a high-speed chase ensued, some of it the wrong way down U.S. 93. HIs criminal record dates back 20 years. He is precisely the wrong person you want having easy access to firearms.

I believe that those who threaten violence when asked by restaurant staff to follow public safety rules or flee at high speeds armed with stolen guns pose a danger to all of us. Making guns accessible to all without background checks invites lawlessness and chaos. There is an old adage: when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. We have arrived at a place, the Wild West, where all of us have guns including the outlaws.

Joseph Biby, Kalispell

Just like the frog in slow boiling water who didnt notice the danger, we seem to be in a similar situation where things are consistently changing at every moment. But because the change is small, most of us fail to notice it.

The Epoch Times newspaper put out a series of articles on How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World.

The series explains: The specter of communism has been working for centuries to corrupt and destroy humanity. It began by crippling man spiritually, divorcing him from his divine origins. From here, the specter has led the peoples of the world to cast out their millennia-old cultural traditions that the divine had meticulously arranged as the proper standards for human existence.

The series explains how the Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated our family values, schools, universities, government, media, real estate every aspect of American life, bringing the U.S. into a chaotic state, and how it is causing the destruction of our beliefs. This series helps us to understand how we are being slowly manipulated into accepting communism. Also, this global pandemic could have been avoided if the CCP hadnt been deceitful and lied.

Katherine Combes, Kalispell

Here is the original post:
Letters to the editor Jan. 9 - Daily Inter Lake

With just days until the beginning of the 2022 legislative session, Senate President Pro-Tem Greg Reed (R-Jasper) vows his membership will have an opportunity to offer bills that did not have a chance to be considered because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reed made that pledge on Fridays broadcast of Alabama Public Televisions Capitol Journal. He explained to host Todd Stacy to expect those bills to cover many issues, including the Second Amendment and economic development.

I tell you something, Todd, that I want to be very sensitive to certainly, as the president of the Senate, I want to be a servant to my members, he said. As you recall, the second year of this quadrennium, which is the year many times you wind up with members being able to offer things that are very important in their districts back home we didnt have a second session. We were here very briefly to deal with the budgets because of the virus. Then we were gone. I want to make sure that those members. If theyve offered legislation, they want to offer legislation again this year on issues that are important to their communities, that they have an opportunity for that to be done and be debated.

I think thats important for the membership, Reed continued. I think they are appreciative of that kind of attitude, and I want to make sure that were able to do that. In that, youre going to see Second Amendment issues. Youre going to see issues that are associated with job creation. There are going to be criminal justice-related themes. There are going to be all kinds of topics that I think are going to be coming that are very important to our members, and I want us to have enough time to be able to listen to those, debate those, evaluate those appropriately.

@Jeff_Pooris a graduate of Auburn University and the University of South Alabama, the editor ofBreitbart TV, a columnist for Mobiles Lagniappe Weekly, and host of Mobiles The Jeff Poor Show from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. on FM Talk 106.5.

More here:
Senate Pro-Tem Reed: Senators will have opportunity to offer bills important in their districts after abbreviated 2020 session in 2022 - Yellowhammer...

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions in Whole Womans Health v. Jackson, the first on September 1 and the second on December 10, 2021. The case deals with the Texas abortion law known as S.B. 8, which prohibits abortion in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy.

By enacting this law, the lawmakers effectively thumbed their noses at Roe v. Wade, which sets the abortion barrier at viability, meaning a gestational age of about 24 weeks. Some clever person came up with a private civil-enforcement scheme that takes the government out of the process. Instead, the law authorizes anyone from anywhere to bring a civil lawsuit against a physician who violates the six-week limit, as well as anyone who aids or abets the doctor.

Such a private enforcer doesnt need to show any personal interest in the matter, any connection to Texas, or for that matter any opinion one way or the other regarding a womans right to choose. Success in court rewards the person with a $10,000 bounty for each violation plus lawyers fees.

The question on the Courts Shadow Docket last September was whether to leave the law in effect while various challenges wend their way through the courts. You dont have to be a lawyer, or pro-choice, to know that when a law is unconstitutional, as this one is so long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, then a state cant opt-out from Article VI, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

That article says that the Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land. It goes on to say that the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, no matter what law the state may enact.

The September 1 ruling, consisting of one very long paragraph, says that the healthcare clinic had not met its preliminary-injunction burden to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that putting a hold on the statute would be consistent with the public interest. In other words, the Supremacy Clause is not so supreme.

How would any of us feel if we were hauled into court by a bounty hunter in a state that had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth-control devices, even though the Supreme Court decided in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, that we have a constitutional right to do so?

The December 10 opinion does not deal with the six weeks law. The Court is already considering whether to uphold the Mississippi 15-week rule and thereby overturn the Roe v. Wade viability standard. Instead, the issue this time was whether Texas has outwitted the Constitution by creating a virtually unchallengeable enforcement system.

The clinic prevailed, but just barely. While holding that the sovereign immunity doctrine and the federal case or controversy requirement rule out suing judges, court clerks and the state attorney general as parties, the Court decided that state licensing officials were properly named, so the case can proceed against them. At the same time, the Court held to its earlier ruling, once again leaving the Texas law fully operational.

In his separate opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, no fan of Roe v. Wade, acknowledged that the effect of S.B. 8 is to deny a right protected under the federal Constitution. As he pointed out, whats at stake in the case is not the particular federal right but rather the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for herself and Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented from both decisions. As usual, she minced no words, finding the September refusal to enjoin S.B. 8 stunning and accusing the Justices in the majority of burying their heads in the sand.

It cannot be the law, she wrote, that a state can evade constitutional scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.

In her December dissent, Sotomayor would keep state court officials and the state attorney general in the case. But her wrath with the Texas legislature and her fellow justices remains unabated. She compares S.B. 8 to the philosophy of slavery supporter John C. Calhoun, who insisted that the states have the right to nullify federal law with which they disagree. And she hasnt gotten over the previous ruling which refused to put a stop to the havoc S.B. 8s unconstitutional scheme has wrought for Texas women.

How disappointing it is that our highest court has allowed the State of Texas to nullify the Supremacy Clause, even for a minute, much less months. Allowing abortion providers to pursue their challenge, even though only against state licensing officials, represents a partial victory for the clinic and common sense, and it may be that the Texas enforcement scheme will be held unconstitutional. In the meanwhile, pregnant women whose constitutional rights have been taken away will never get them back.

Ironically, the State of California may enact copycat legislation permitting private bounty hunters to sue people who are exercising gun ownership rights protected by the Courts Second Amendment ruling. Such a law would suffer the same enforcement infirmities as S.B. 8.

Yale has taken Calhouns name off the undergraduate residential hall long known as Calhoun College, but he must be smiling from the grave.

(Attorney Joseph D. Steinfield lives in Keene. He can be reached at joe@joesteinfield.com.)

More:
My Turn: It's not just about abortion rights, it's about the Constitution - Concord Monitor

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The race for Texas governor was kickstarted Saturday as Gov. Greg Abbott and Democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke returned to the campaign trail along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Abbott formally announced his bid for a third term in McAllen, saying he was running to "keep Texas on the right course." Minutes earlier, O'Rourke was back on the stump in his hometown of El Paso, accusing Abbott of not listening to border communities like his.

During Abbott's roughly half-hour speech in McAllen, he focused on issues that included taxes, education and law enforcement. The governor largely avoided some of the most dramatic chapters he has faced in his second term, including the coronavirus pandemic and the power-grid failure after February's winter storm. While Abbott did not mention O'Rourke by name, he made a few clear references to him and broadly attacked Democrats.

Ad

"We cannot let big-government liberals redesign our state with the progressive agenda that is destroying some parts of America," Abbott said. "We need a proven winner who will fight to secure the future of Texas. That is why today I am in the Rio Grande Valley to officially announce my reelection."

Abbott delivered the speech at his campaign's Hispanic Leadership Summit, a notable setting as Republicans set out ambitious plans for 2022 in South Texas. President Joe Biden underperformed last year in the predominantly Hispanic, traditionally Democratic area. Abbott, who according to exit polling received 44% and 42% of the Hispanic vote in his past two campaigns, has made clear he wants to win the Hispanic vote in his reelection bid.

Touting his two terms in office, Abbott criticized Biden, saying he had not done enough to secure the border. The governor claimed that, under his leadership, Texas "responded with the strongest border security effort by any state ever in the history of the United States of America." That has included Texas' own border wall, which began construction last month, and the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to the border. That deployment has faced criticism from Abbott's challengers in both parties, following reports of suicides and pay issues.

Ad

Addressing supporters outside a brewery in El Paso, O'Rourke said border communities do not want walls and "militarization." But O'Rourke said Abbott does not trust border communities to develop their own solutions to immigration challenges.

"We want people who come to this country to do it the right way, to follow the law," O'Rourke said. "We want there to be order and not chaos, but we have the best idea, because of the best experiences, in how to make that happen."

The dueling events marked the starting gun of the election year in Texas, especially for Abbott. He is launching a statewide media buy Monday, and his campaign has promised he will appear at 60 events before the March 1 primary.

Both Abbott and O'Rourke have to get through that primary before facing one another. O'Rourke faces minimal primary opposition, while Abbott has a group of challengers who have been hounding him from the right for months. While polling has shown him in a comfortable position heading into March, Abbott has spent the past year moving the state firmly to the right by championing laws that, for example, allow permitless carry of handguns and impose restrictive abortion measures.

Ad

Those laws have been at the center of O'Rourke's case against Abbott, along with the COVID-19 pandemic and the grid failure that left millions of Texans and has been linked to 246 deaths. Abbott, who has expressed confidence that lawmakers have done enough to prevent another grid collapse, did not broach the topic in his McAllen speech. He mentioned COVID-19 twice, but primarily focused on laws he pushed that prevent government officials from closing churches during emergencies and that provided civil liability protections for businesses that operated during the pandemic.

Abbott sought a contrast with O'Rourke by promoting the permitless carry law, which proponents call "constitutional carry."

"While some have threatened to come and take your guns, I signed more than 20 laws to protect your Second Amendment rights, including making Texas a 'constitutional carry' state," Abbott said.

As a 2020 presidential candidate, O'Rourke vowed during a debate that "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." At the time, he was promoting a mandatory buyback of assault weapons, which he proposed in response to the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre that targeted Hispanics. O'Rourke has stood by that proposal in his current campaign.

Ad

In recent days, O'Rourke has been increasingly focused on Abbott's border-security blitz, including the reports of poor conditions for National Guardsmen. He has said Abbott is using the troops as "political pawns."

On Saturday, O'Rourke said Abbott sees border communities as a "prop" to spread fear about immigrants. He also called out Abbott for a fundraising letter he sent before the Walmart shooting in El Paso that implored supporters to "DEFEND" the border.

"Here in El Paso, we know perhaps better than anyone else that those aren't just words," O'Rourke said.

During his speech, Abbott offered a handful of sharp attacks on Democrats but otherwise focused on promoting his accomplishments during his tenure and making promises for his next term. He specifically promised to deliver a "bill of rights" to ensure further property tax relief and another one to make sure parents have a greater say in their children's education. Specifics about the policies he would propose were not immediately available.

Ad

Erin Douglas contributed reporting.

More here:
Abbott, O'Rourke lead off election year with visits to border cities - KSAT San Antonio

TORONTO, Jan. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Marathon Gold Corporation (Marathon or the Company; TSX: MOZ) is pleased to report that it has filed an amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement (the EIS and, as amended, the amended-EIS) for the Valentine Gold Project (the Project) located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

The amended-EIS has been filed with the Environmental Assessment Division of the NL Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) pursuant to the Projects ongoing Environmental Assessment (EA), and is the second such amendment filed. The amended-EIS addresses all requests for additional information on the Project received by Marathon from the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) on October 29, 2021, including in the areas of Caribou Protection and Effects Monitoring, Victoria Lake Reservoir and Victoria Dam Effects and Mitigations, and Effects on Human Health, amongst others.

Matt Manson, President and CEO, commented: Since the commencement of the EA process for the Valentine Gold Project in April 2019, Marathon has worked diligently to measure and describe the full range of potential social and environmental impacts from the development and operation of the Project, and their mitigations. This large body of work, that includes several years of detailed environmental and social baseline data, is contained within the Projects EIS. The filing of this second amendment to the EIS is in response to the provincial review comments that we received at the time of the October 29, 2021 letter issued to us by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Since that time our team has worked diligently to address the issues raised in the Ministers letter. This includes the completion of a Caribou Protection and Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (the Caribou Plan) that fully operationalizes our proposed monitoring programs for potential impacts on caribou behaviour arising from the Project, and their mitigations. The Caribou Plan has been developed in close consultation with the Wildlife Division of the NL Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, and has benefitted from engagement with impacted NL stakeholders and Indigenous groups. Todays filing triggers a new 70-day round of technical and public review of the amended-EIS, as prescribed within the provincial EA process. At the end of this period, the Minister will have a further opportunity to make a determination on the acceptability of the Project. Successful completion of the provincial EA process this spring, and the completion of the parallel federal EA process, will allow us to commence the Projects activity-specific permitting process ahead of anticipated ground-breaking in the third quarter of this year.

The Valentine Gold Project is subject to regulation under the environmental protection regimes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the NL Environmental Protection Act. Marathon filed a Project Description with both the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the NL DECC on April 5, 2019, which was accepted into the formal EA process on April 16, 2019. An Environmental Assessment Committee for the Project was established on July 3, 2019, and the Projects EIS was filed on September 29, 2020. The EIS was accepted as conforming with guidelines on November 3, 2020 and has been undergoing formal review since this time.

Both the federal and provincial EA processes provide for the technical review of the EIS by multiple government agencies and the opportunity for public comment. Following initial regulatory and public review, federal Information Requirements (IRs) and provincial review comments were issued to Marathon in February 2021. The IRs and review comments are a routine part of the EA process, reflecting requested clarifications or information on various aspects of the EIS received from regulators, Indigenous groups, the public, and other stakeholders.

Marathon completed the submission of responses to 76 first-round federal IRs on May 3, 2021. Responses to 362 first-round provincial review comments were submitted on August 3, 2021. In the provincial process, responses to review comments take the form of an amendment to the EIS. IAAC subsequently issued a second round of 23 federal IRs, to which Marathon submitted responses on October 18, 2021. On October 29, 2021, Marathon was informed by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change that it would be required to respond to a second round of 33 provincial review comments, with responses to take the form of a second amendment to the EIS. Since this time, an additional 3 IRs have been received from the federal regulator and responded to.

Marathons filing of the amended-EIS with the provincial regulator starts an additional 70-day period of technical review and opportunity for public comment. At the end of this period, the Minister has up to 10 days to issue a decision as to whether the amended-EIS is acceptable or if further work is required. If the amended-EIS is deemed to be acceptable, the Minister has up to a further 30 days to make a recommendation to the provincial cabinet as to whether the Project should be released from its EA. Should the Minister decide that additional information is needed, a further round of review comments will result, triggering another round of response preparation, EIS amendment, and technical and public review. The federal EA process under the authority of IAAC remains ongoing in parallel with the provincial EA process. Release from both EA processes in a timely fashion, and the completion of sufficient activity-specific permitting, is a pre-requisite for the commencement of Project construction.

Qualified Persons

Disclosure of a scientific or technical nature in this news release has been approved by Mr. Tim Williams, FAusIMM, Chief Operating Officer of Marathon and Mr. James Powell, P.Eng. (NL), Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs for Marathon. Mr. Williams and Mr. Powell are qualified persons under National Instrument (NI) 43-101.

About Marathon

Marathon (TSX:MOZ) is a Toronto based gold company advancing its 100%-owned Valentine Gold Project located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the top mining jurisdictions in the world.The Project comprises a series of five mineralized deposits along a 20-kilometre system. An April 2021 Feasibility Study outlined an open pit mining and conventional milling operation over a thirteen-year mine life with a 31.5% after-tax rate of return. The Project has estimated Proven Mineral Reserves of 1.40 Moz (29.68 Mt at 1.46 g/t) and Probable Mineral Reserves of 0.65 Moz (17.38 Mt at 1.17 g/t). Total Measured Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) comprise 1.92 Moz (32.59 Mt at 1.83 g/t) with Indicated Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) of 1.22 Moz (24.07 Mt at 1.57 g/t). Additional Inferred Mineral Resources are 1.64 Moz (29.59 Mt at 1.72 g/t Au). Please see Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities and available at http://www.sedar.com for further details and assumptions relating to the Valentine Gold Project.

For more information, please contact:

To find out more information on Marathon Gold Corporation and the Valentine Gold Project, please visit http://www.marathon-gold.com.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information contained in this news release, constitutes forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (forward-looking statements). All statements in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, which address events, results, outcomes or developments that Marathon expects to occur are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as expects, anticipates, plans, believes, estimates, considers, intends, targets, or negative versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as may, will, should, would and could. We provide forward-looking statements for the purpose of conveying information about our current expectations and plans relating to the future, and readers are cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. More particularly and without restriction, this news release contains forward-looking information, including statements as to management's expectations with respect to, among other things, the matters and activities contemplated in this news release.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions and accordingly, actual results and future events could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. You are hence cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. In respect of the forward-looking statements concerning the interpretation of exploration results and the impact on the Projects mineral resource estimate, the Company has provided such statements in reliance on certain assumptions it believes are reasonable at this time, including assumptions as to the continuity of mineralization between drill holes. A mineral resource that is classified as inferred or indicated has a great amount of uncertainty as to its existence and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that any or part of an indicated mineral resource or inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category of mineral resource. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into proven and probable mineral reserves.

By its nature, this information is subject to inherent risks and uncertainties that may be general or specific and which give rise to the possibility that expectations, forecasts, predictions, projections or conclusions will not prove to be accurate, that assumptions may not be correct and that objectives, strategic goals and priorities will not be achieved. Factors that could cause future results or events to differ materially from current expectations expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits and conclusions of economic evaluations; uncertainty as to estimation of mineral resources; inaccurate geological and metallurgical assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of mineral resources); the potential for delays or changes in plans in exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, or the completion of feasibility studies due to changes in logistical, technical or other factors; the possibility that future exploration, development, construction or mining results will not be consistent with the Companys expectations; risks related to the ability of the current exploration program to identify and expand mineral resources; risks relating to possible variations in grade, planned mining dilution and ore loss, or recovery rates and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; operational mining and development risks, including risks related to accidents, equipment breakdowns, labour disputes (including work stoppages and strikes) or other unanticipated difficulties with or interruptions in exploration and development; risks related to the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses; risks related to commodity and power prices, foreign exchange rate fluctuations and changes in interest rates; the uncertainty of profitability based upon the cyclical nature of the mining industry; risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and on acceptable terms or delays in obtaining governmental or other stakeholder approvals or in the completion of development or construction activities; risks related to environmental regulation and liability, government regulation and permitting; risks relating to the Companys ability to attract and retain skilled staff; risks relating to the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for continued operations and future development projects; political and regulatory risks associated with mining and exploration; risks relating to the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company and the mining industry; changes in general economic conditions or conditions in the financial markets; and other risks described in Marathons documents filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities, including the Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020.

You can find further information with respect to these and other risks in Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at http://www.sedar.com. Other than as specifically required by law, Marathon undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, whether as a result of new information, future events or results otherwise.

Read the original here:
Marathon Gold Announces Filing of Amendment to the EIS for the Valentine Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador - Junior Mining Network