oldparasitesingle

The international investor community has today made it clear that the status quo on #climate policy is not acceptable.

Investors are taking action on climate change, from direct investment in renewables to company engagement and reducing exposure to carbon risk. But to invest in low carbon energy at the scale we need requires stronger policies.

Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (via DeSmogBlog)
oldparasitesingle

BREAKING: Five Land defenders were arrested yesterday morning at the construction site of US Oil Sands’ tar sands strip-mine in Utah.PLEASE LIKE & SHARE!Currently, the land defenders (including the media team) are being held on Class A Trespassing charges, with a total bail estimated at $10,500.One of those arrested is a trans woman, and at this time we are unsure if she is being held in solitary, or if she is being housed with the male population. Neither situation is acceptable, we are extremely concerned about the dangers she may be facing.We will provide updates and media here as they become available.Donate to the land defenders’ legal support fund by visiting:http:// www.tarsandsresist.org/Utah5

BREAKING: Five Land defenders were arrested yesterday morning at the construction site of US Oil Sands’ tar sands strip-mine in Utah.

PLEASE LIKE & SHARE!

Currently, the land defenders (including the media team) are being held on Class A Trespassing charges, with a total bail estimated at $10,500.

One of those arrested is a trans woman, and at this time we are unsure if she is being held in solitary, or if she is being housed with the male population. Neither situation is acceptable, we are extremely concerned about the dangers she may be facing.

We will provide updates and media here as they become available.

Donate to the land defenders’ legal support fund by visiting:
http:// www.tarsandsresist.org/Utah5

oldparasitesingle

priceofliberty:

Further evidence that the Obama Regime is busy crafting ways to take away your constitutional rights comes in the form of another United States bureaucracy that has been politically weaponized. 

The U.S. Forest Service is requiring reporters to pay permits costing up to $1,500 to take pictures or video in federally designated wilderness areas, with costly fines of course, for disobeying the new tyrannical shredding of the First Amendments.

Virtually every federal government bureaucracy has been politically weaponized, including the IRS and EPA, but now the U.S. Forest Service?

Fees, penalties, permits to take pictures of trees or a lake?

Welcome to Obama’s America, or shall we call it “fundamental transformation” or “hope and change?”

The Oregonian  reports that these new rules are being finalized in November: 

The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country’s wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas.

Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in any of the nation’s 100 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone.

Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don’t get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.

First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they’d allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories.

Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, “It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can’t.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first (nor will it be the last) attempt to reign in the First Amendment. Dianne Feinstein and friends have long-been championing a “media shield law” which, on its surface, has been disguised as a bill to “protect” journalists who report whistleblowers and their stories. As I’ve written in the past, however, the proposed legislation is anything but benign.

In the wake of one whistleblower after another exposing state secrets, Eric Holder has led the charge in a campaign to redefine what it means to be a journalist. Supporters like Chuck Schumer and Feinstein agree: “this kind of law would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information.” That’s a euphemistic way of saying any future legislation must include “national security” exceptions. Proposed bills in the past have redefined what it means to be a journalist—such definitions have excluded Wikileaks and even bloggers like myself.

A bill proposed in 2013 included the ‘Feinstein-Durbin amendment,’ which would have narrowly defined journalists as “a salaried agent” of a “media company”. Feinstein also reportedly said that the bill shouldn’t apply to WikiLeaks or “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5 and starts a blog”—meaning these folks would be unprotected from State prosecution.

You can read more about the so-called “Free Flow of Information Act” here.