by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 19, 2012 | Mining & Drilling
By Defenders of Wildlife
The House of Representatives voted on Feb. 16 to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and along almost every acre of our coastline including off the East Coast, West Coast, the protected eastern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Bristol Bay to oil drilling all under the guise of funding this year’s transportation bill.
The funding issue is a scam. Even the most generous revenue estimates from this reckless expansion of drilling will not be enough to fund proposed transportation projects in the bill. In addition, what small amounts of revenue might be generated from oil and gas leasing in the Arctic refuge would not be seen for ten years as oil companies will still need to explore, apply for drilling permits and start development. In short, H.R. 3408 is a fiscal gimmick that relies on unknown future revenues that are speculative at best to pay for transportation projects today.
Upon passage of the bill, Defenders’ president and CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark, said, “Today, the House approved the most radical drilling-bill we have seen in recent memory. This fiscal boondoggle would industrialize the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to iconic wildlife like polar bears and the Porcupine Caribou herd, exposing thousands of miles of coastline to chronic pollution from offshore drilling and potential oil disasters like the Deepwater Horizon.
The Arctic refuge is the largest onshore denning area for America’s polar bears.
The vote comes only one day after an exploratory well exploded on Alaska’s North Slope, spewing drilling mud, leaking natural gas and requiring the intervention of a company specializing in blowout control.
“Yesterday’s exploratory well explosion on Alaska’s North Slope demonstrates once again that drilling is a dangerous business. We can’t afford to take those risks with some of our most pristine and fragile places, some of which may never recover should a drilling accident occur. The Senate should reject this funding scam and look for realistic ways to meet our transportation needs without sacrificing the health of our environment.”
From Ecowatch
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 18, 2012 | Repression at Home
By Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed a victory to corporations and a political advocacy group by allowing them to spend freely before Montana’s 2012 elections, a follow-up case to the court’s major campaign finance ruling two years ago.
The justices granted a request from the three plaintiffs to put on hold a December decision by the Montana Supreme Court that upheld a century-old state law banning independent corporate campaign spending.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the Montana decision contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago that gave corporations the constitutional free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates for federal office.
The Montana Supreme Court ruled the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two years ago did not control the outcome because the Montana law was different and justified by the state’s interest in preventing corporate corruption and influence in politics.
The Supreme Court’s order cleared the way for corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on ads and other political activities designed to influence voters.
Montana’s primary elections are on June 5 and general elections are in November.
“While I’m disappointed that for the first time in 100 years Montanans won’t be able to rely on our corporate spending ban to safeguard the integrity of our elections, I am encouraged that the Supreme Court will give this careful consideration,” Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock said in a statement.
“For more than a century, anyone has been able to participate in Montana elections – even out-of-state corporate executives. All we required is that they used their own money, not that of their stockholders, and they disclosed who they are,” Bullock added.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, cited the experience in Montana and elsewhere since the ruling two years ago and said it was difficult to maintain that corporate spending does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
She said an eventual appeal in the Montana case will give the court an opportunity to consider whether the ruling two years ago should continue to hold sway “in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance.”
The next step in the case will be for plaintiffs to file their appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the state court ruling.
There has been a massive increase in corporate spending during the political campaigns ahead of the 2012 elections, mainly due to the ruling in 2010.
The Supreme Court case is American Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General of Montana, No. 11-A762.
From The Raw Story: https://web.archive.org/web/20120630092140/http://www.rawstory.com:80/rs/2012/02/18/supreme-court-allows-montana-corporation-election-spending/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 18, 2012 | Repression at Home
By Will Potter / Green is the New Red
Utah is the latest state to consider new laws targeting undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms. A new bill would make photographing animal abuse on par with assaulting a police officer.
Rep. John Mathis calls undercover investigators “animal rights terrorists,” and says video recordings that have brought national attention to systemic animal welfare abuses are “propaganda” and fundraising efforts.
The bill, HB187, targets anyone who videotapes or takes photograph on a farmer’s property without permission. It creates the crime of “agricultural operation interference,” a class A misdemeanor which is elevated to a third-degree felony on the second offense.
It comes at at time when the FBI has considered “terrorism” charges against undercover investigators.
Rep. Mathis’ opening remarks at a hearing by the Utah House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee on February 14th are indicative of the good ol’ boy network that is attempting to pass this legislation:
“It’s fun to see my good ag friends in this committee,” Mathis said. “… all my good friends are here.”
Mathis, the sponsor of the bill, said animal protection groups are solely using their investigations as “propaganda” efforts for fundraising drives. He went on to claim that animal welfare reforms, such as allowing chickens to spread their wings, are actually “detrimental to the welfare of animals.”
Exposing animal abuse is hurting animal welfare? Photography is terrorism? What Mathis leaves out is that these investigations have led to criminal charges against farm workers. Just this week, undercover video shot by Mercy for Animals at a Butterball farm resulted in six workers being charged with misdemeanors and felonies.
And a recent investigation by Compassion Over Killing (in Iowa, another state considering “Ag Gag” legislation) showed workers pushing herniated intestines back inside injured piglets, then covering the wound with tape.
Only token gestures of opposition were made during the hearing, such as one representative voicing concerns that the bill could target people who take “pretty barn pictures.”
But this bill isn’t about pretty pictures.
This bill, and similar attempts in Florida, Iowa, Minnesota and New York, is to criminalize anyone who exposes abuses on factory farms.
These disproportionate penalties are solely motivated by the corporate interests affected by animal welfare reforms. As Rep. Craig Frank, a Republican, noted: this bill makes taking a photograph of a factory farm in Utah a third-degree felony on the second offense, the same as assaulting a police officer.
He called it a “Blank Angus Ops” bill and questioned the need for new laws when trespassing is already a crime, but outside of making jokes he and the others on the committee offered no opposition.
In light of the recent criminal charges and systemic animal welfare violations, it’s startling to hear Mathis and supporters say the bill is the same as punishing someone who leaves a video recorder “under you and your wife’s bed.”
This isn’t about personal privacy.
It’s about corporations attempting to hide their criminal activity, deceive consumers, and deflect public scrutiny onto those who are dragging these abuses into the sunlight.
The committee voted 10-3 to move the measure as originally written to the full House. You can contact Utah representatives about HB 187 here.
From Green is the New Red
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 14, 2012 | Mining & Drilling, Repression at Home, Toxification
By Maura Stephens
Pennsylvania’s state legislature has effectively signed a death warrant for some number of residents, who knows how many. Corbett’s about to make it official.
Pennsylvanians: Fight back — or suffer the consequences.
The fracking industry has written a bill that gives itself legal permission to poison Pennsylvanians-and keeps doctors who treat them once they’re poisoned from telling anyone else what poisoned them. The bill also essentially permits all gas drilling and processing activities anywhere, including in residential areas.
It’s all being sold as an “impact fee” bill. Counties that want the income will sign on — and that probably means most counties will.
The industry was helped in this covert operation by crooks in political office. Those political criminals should be held accountable (more on this below).
The 174-page bill, HB1950, was signed in both the House and Senate of the state’s General Assembly, and on Friday (2/10/12) the Senate passed it to Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett for signature.
This is yet the latest egregious example of industry-state denial of municipalities’ right to protect themselves. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that this is the legal permitting of murder — and legalization of coerced suicide.
There can be no question that the legislators who signed it are in collusion with industry. They are corrupt. There can be no other explanation. These people have an obligation to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania, and not only are they not doing so, but they are also denying citizens the right to protect themselves—and denying physicians and nurses the ability to protect their patients!
And if this outrage does not get Pennsylvanians (and everyone) out in the streets, in Harrisburg at the governor’s mansion demanding a veto, and at the offices of state legislators, demanding a reversal of the bill’s passage, I do not know what will.
As Berks-Mont News reported on January 25, Pennsylvania municipalities currently do “have the legal right to decide where and how gas development occurs. Both the Municipalities Planning Code and the State Constitution vest municipalities with the authority and responsibility to address local environmental and public resources. State Supreme Court rulings have also made it clear that the state Oil and Gas Act allows municipalities the right to use zoning codes to restrict the location of gas wells.”
This law negates those rights and completely strips communities of their rights to self govern. This is a blatant abrogation of the United States constitution and all the hackneyed assertions that We the People have any say any longer in crafting U.S. law.
Read more from TruthOut:
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 9, 2012 | Repression at Home
By Common Dreams staff
A bill has passed in the House and Senate this week that would increase the presence of drones in U.S. civilian airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act requires the FAA to alleviate many current rules on domestic drone authorization. Drones would now be able to fly in the same airspace as commercial airliners, private planes, and cargo jets. Up to 30,000 drones could be allowed in U.S. airspace by the end of the decade.
The Senate passed the bill on Monday, 75-20 and allots $63.4 billion to the FAA. Obama is expected to sign it into law.
ACLU, among other civil liberties groups, is expressing grave concern for civilian privacy, as the legislation does not restrict drone surveillance activities by police and federal government agencies.
ACLU states:
As we explained in our recent report, drone technology is advancing by leaps and bounds, and there is a lot of pent-up demand for them within the law enforcement community. But, domestic deployment of unmanned aircraft for surveillance purposes has largely been blocked so far by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is rightly concerned about the safety effects of filling our skies with flying robots (which crash significantly more often than manned aircraft).[…]
Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.[…]
We don’t want to wonder, every time we step out our front door, whether some eye in the sky is watching our every move. […]
Here are details on what the bill would do in terms of drones:
- Require the FAA to simplify and speed up the process by which it issues permission to government agencies to operate drones. It must do this within 90 days. The FAA has already been working on a set of proposed regulations to loosen the rules around drones, reportedly set for release in the spring of 2012.
- Require the FAA to allow “a government public safety agency” to operate any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less as long as certain conditions are met (within line of sight, during the day, below 400 feet in altitude, and only in safe categories of airspace)
- Require the FAA to establish a pilot project within six months to create six test zones for integrating drones “into the national airspace system.”
- Require the FAA to create a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” “Civil” drones means those operated by the private sector; currently it is all but impossible for any non-government entity, except for hobbyists, to get permission to fly drones (for-profit use of drones is banned). Industry groups and their congressional supporters see this as a potential area for growth. Congress specifies that the plan must provide for the integration of drones into the national airspace system “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.” The FAA has nine months to create the plan. The FAA is also required to create a “5-year roadmap for the introduction” of civil drones into the national airspace.
- Require the FAA to publish a final rule within 18 months after the comprehensive plan is submitted, “that will allow” civil operation of small (under 55 pounds) drones in the national airspace, and a proposed rule for carrying out the comprehensive plan.TPM reports:
The federal government is also facing a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group that is asking for the FAA to release records on the almost-300 agencies that have authorization to operate drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the EFF who brought the case, told TPM that this bill makes their suit even more important. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” Lynch said. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue.”
From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-6
