Will Bail Ins Be Next For Depositors Money?

Ellen Brown, founder of WebofDebt.com, thinks so-called 'bail-ins' are coming. Depositors' money will be legally taken. Brown says, "That's the big disaster that's coming.

Probably one of these big derivative banks will go bankrupt . . . the derivative players will get first dibs.

They'll grab all the deposits, and there won't be anything left."

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with author and journalist Ellen Brown.

Have Farmers Or Home Gardners Also Become Enemies Of The State?

extremist

Written by MRHEALTH | August 31, 2013 | 0

( J. D. Heyes)  If the founding fathers were reincarnated today, they’d probably start another revolution, this time to break away from an American government that has become far too imperial for its own good.

And as such, they’d be labeled “extremists” by those who mean to rule us.

In fact, the nation’s founders are considered extremists by the Pentagon, according to a new “training manual” that explicitly labels the framers as such.

Discovered by legal watchdog Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act request, the manual was part of 133 documents provided by the Air Force. The January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute “student guide” is entitled “Extremism.” The document says that it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.”

Believe in freedom? You’re an extremist…

The manual defines an “extremist” as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”

In addition, it says, “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

So, if ye love liberty and freedom more than ye love a big, powerful central government that has grown well beyond its constitutional boundaries, you’re an extremist. If ye dare to take care of yourself, to be an individual who grows his own food (weren’t there a number of farmers and plantation owners in the group of founding fathers?) ye are an enemy of the state.

Under the section, “Extremist Ideologies,” the manual states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

Though the document released today by Judicial Watch was obtained from the Air Force, it originated in a DOD office and is, therefore, thought to likely be used in other agency components, said Judicial Watch.

“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” long-serving JW president Tom Fitton said.

“And it is striking that some [of] the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces,” he added.

This isn’t the first time the federal government, one of its agencies or some other “official” source has equated freedom-loving Americans who have an originalist view of the Constitution and its meaning with extremists.

Irreconcilable violence ahead?

Per InfoWars:
In 2009, Infowars obtained the “law enforcement sensitive” contents of a Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” which listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists.

Also, in July 2012 Infowars blew the lid on a Department of Homeland Security-funded study, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, that characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
In the past couple of decades it became clear that the federal government has become increasingly hostile towards anyone or any political movement that seeks to curb its power. Constitutionalists are portrayed as kooks and psychos, while the ruling class is portrayed as righteous, forthright and proper.

This is dangerous, for not only has it made dialogue next to impossible, but it has also created a climate of irreconcilability that could someday lead to violence.

Soy Tyranny Video

Soy Tryanny The Tyranny of Soy Agribusiness in Paraguay tells how Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and a series of Brazilians agribusinesses are flexing their muscles in Paraguay, currently occupying 25% of all arable land for the production of genetically modified soy for export.

"The losers are Paraguay's peasant farmers, and they've mobilized to defend themselves, including getting a president into power who promised to help them."

Why Does Portland Murder Dogs When There Are Rescue/Adoption Options?

Remembering Ozzie, a homeless man’s loved dog,

MCAS 520553, killed at MCAS as soon as MCAS could claim him as their property

 

To the public:

 

 Seek an immediate investigation of MCAS (Multnomah County’s animal control) including closure and investigation of its management and employees responsible for this travesty. 

 

Ozzie, a little brindle pit bull dog, who belonged to a homeless person, is one case among many, part of a long documented history of this county’s needless killing of companion animals under the guise of “keeping he community safe”.   

 

Those in charge of policy and its execution are: Michael Oswald, Officer Michelle Luckey and Officer Charles Poetz.  David Blankfeld, County Attorney, is responsible for his complete indifference and failure to seek or mediate humane solutions, silently endorsing whatever the agency wants to do no matter the available humane options. 

 

County Counsel Blankfeld  gives “legal opinions” without considering ethical moral  boundaries or considerations,  noting only when an animal becomes “county “ property that  the agency can “dispose” of that animal at will, meaning so it can be destroyed.

 

Almost always the “offenses” are correctable offenses that do not require killing: they simply require training and management  and sometimes help getting that assistance. But even when public safety concerns can be met and humane options exist , MCAS prefers to retaliate against owners by killing their companion animals.  

 

Multnomah County, particularly targets companion animals belonging to the less fortunate in our community including the homeless; those without means.

 

 It is the grim task that Multnomah County does best. 

 

They seek no humane options preferring death as the best way to protect the public’s safety because they view animals as disposable pests, nuisances and liabilities in a town and a county known for its animal lovers.  

 

 Most impounded animals (those not on the adoption floor and that is the overwhelming majority) are held in solitary confinement, not allowed any personal contact or exercise until they are “tested”.

 

 Most staff is forbidden from entering Intake or Security to engage the animals on Intake or Security in any way. In those areas, Michael Oswald has enforced staff rules forbidding all normal social contact with animals including happy talk or visual contact; no treats as part of his prison for homeless animals; the only philosophy he holds. It explains the fear one sees in public records descriptions of homeless animals and their relief when those released, the lucky ones, are allowed to leave the agency.

 

Ozzie, a friendly brindle pit bull, belonging to a homeless man Michael Holter, (who in addition   suffers from depression, Ozzie was his service dog,) did have a humane option:  places to go. He could have lived with Michael’s mother in her new home with a fenced yard out of county (MCAS permits banishment from the county as an alternative).

 

 He could have gone to a rescue or just a safe home. But in its haste to kill, as soon as MCAS director Michael Oswald found an advantage, when David Blankfeld noted the county could take custody of Ozzie as their property ( because Michael Holter did not have the $500 out of pocket for the writ to proceed, although we would have raised that sum) the county took immediate advantage. MCAS killed Ozzie on September 17, the day after David Blankfeld noted to MCAS “it is OK to proceed with the disposition of Ozzie as he is the property of the county”.

 

 Seizing Ozzie as county property was all that mattered.  At that time no one notified Robert Babcock, the attorney for Ozzie’s family, or Ozzie’s family, as we had begun to raise the necessary $500, knowing  full well that we had and always seek humane options and that we were doing so for Ozzie. Better to go around those potential options and win, killing a helpless dog by killing swiftly in the dark, making it a moot point.  That too is documented county habit, to “win” at all costs the taking of the life of a young animal.

 

Why not outwit a homeless suffering from depression and his mother knowing the family didn’t have the additional $500 required to permit the writ to move forward?  

 

 Why not just decide not to tell the lawyer involved?

 

 Why let me know when MCAS knows I work to find humane options. 

 

Certainly David Blankfeld knows this as do the personnel at MCAS. But we only learned of Ozzie’s planned death after he was already destroyed. What did Multnomah County’s inhumane clever government manipulation “win”? The right to be cruel and get away with it?

 

There is no justice for the poor and homeless in Multnomah County, certainly not at MCAS the end destination for many of the animals of vulnerable populations.  The homeless and poverty stricken are not provided justice in Multnomah County simply because they are poor.  

 

 Justice is “unaffordable”. Ozzie died for lack of $500 and this agency’s intransigence. The county’s government refused to waive the fee. Neither mercy nor justice should come with an attached price tag marked “unaffordable”...

 

Using poverty and a citizen’ inability to pay  is how MCAS “wind” permission to kill helpless animals in Multnomah county along with phony behavior tests that testify only to the fear and sometimes terror of frightened lost animals in an unfamiliar jail set up for the county’s lost and homeless animals.

 

Ozzie

 

Ozzie was held in solitary confinement from February 15, the day after Valentine’s Day, until September 17, the day he was destroyed by MCAS. 

 

He was alone continuously for 215 days, all spent in solitary confinement in a concrete block isolated kennel: no social contact or exercise allowed by MCAS.  No one who advocated for Ozzie, his attorney, those of us in the animal welfare community, or his family, was notified or given the option of seeking an alternative. 

 

He was killed swiftly for what is in fact an easily manageable behavior. No one was given a chance. Killing swiftly, the agency’s habit is done to force its will, render the point moot (“too late)...

 

Ozzie’s crime, the dog who loved all people, was occasional aggression towards some small animals some times (a common behavior with some dogs; but civilized societies don’t kill live beings to “end” the problem; they/we fix the problem through management and training; it is what civilized people do)

 

 On this occasion Michael Holter’s mother exited the car with Ozzie after asking the owner of the small dog in front of the car to step back (he did not).  No serious injures ensued. (The injury was minor; broken skin). The incident was an easily solved management problem but MCAS only believes in harsh punishments, killing, escalating fines, banishment and coerced surrender.

 

Ozzie was impounded; as it was a repeat offense and ownership suspension was sought .MCAS refused all problem solving solutions. MCAS does not have nor cares about training and education prevention: just muzzles, kennels, (doggy jails for one) and escalating fines leading to forcing owner surrender. Once impounded on Security, Ozzie lived day after day in a concrete block cell, no toys, no attention, no exercise, and no eye contact, nothing per Michael Oswald’s rules for kenneling on Security and much of Intake at MCAS.

 

Michael Oswald also discourages visitors from coming to see their impounded animals. His rules for visitors make it as stressful, sad and difficult an experience as possible to deter the public from visiting.   MCAS made visiting Ozzie, (friendly to all humans, just some dysfunctional behaviors around some small dogs), literally impossible for his owners.

 

 The restrictions were: call ahead, appointment only, when it is almost impossible to get telephone service,   restricted to 15 minutes, divided into 5 minute segments, 5 minutes each since there were three persons: Michael, his sister, and mother; no treats; not allowed to get out and exercise. All visits are monitored by staff to see that no rules are broken. The restrictions border on sadism. There is no public safety reason for them at all, just cruelty. And they are commonplace at this agency. .

 

All that prevented the writ of review for Ozzie, moving forward was Michael Holter and his mother's poverty.  They did not have money for the $500 writ of review.

 

The county refused to consider his poverty a mitigating circumstance and reduce or lower the fee. Michael Holter’s homelessness and diagnosis of depression were in effect held against him. Neither he nor his mother had $500 for the writ of review to move forward/proceed. MCAS exploited that fact and declined to consider humane alternative solutions when Ozzie became their “property”.

 

But there were many humane solutions from management training to allowing Michael Holter’s mother who lives out of county and has a duplex with a securely fenced yard who wanted to have Ozzie come live with her. She would have been happy to build a kennel if that were a requirement or condition.

 

Instead, MCAS took gross advantage of their alleged granting of final “custody” and exploited the family’s impoverished means, as they do with all impoverished clients. They use it to leverage control. 

 

They never called the attorney, Robert Babcock or the family before killing him because there were options. Killing is all they care about at this maximum security prison for stray animals: “winning” the right to take a life when options clearly existed.

 

Had anyone  known about the  monetary restriction, $500,  that prevented Ozzie’s writ of review case from moving forward , had any of us known in the world of animal welfare,  we would have  raised the  money immediately.

 

 In fact we were doing so yesterday when we learned that was the stumbling block and didn’t know Ozzie was already dead.  Justice shouldn’t be denied homeless persons or those with limited income because they can’t meet exorbitant fees.

 

Instead we were kept in the dark.  I offered to raise the money as soon as I learned from public records provided September 24 2013 that money was the only reason the writ of review could not proceed. But by the time I received the follow  public  records on Tuesday September 24, (ordering expensive public records is the only permitted way we or any member of the public is  permitted information about impounded animals  on Intake or Security) Ozzie was dead. 

 

There was no warning or advance notice at all from records. It was deliberately hidden. The previous week’s entry in agency public records entered on September 11, 2013 was “DO NOT PTS A WRIT OF REVIEW HAS BEEN FILED”.   

 

The following week on September 16 apparently as David Blankfeld, Multnomah county attorney, headed off on vacation he advised the agency, noted in records: “Per David Blankfled it is ok to proceed with disposition on Ozzie as he is the property of the county (Officer Michelle Luckey)”. 

 

  No one at the county notified Robert Babcock, the pro bono attorney for Ozzie and for Ozzie’s family or Ozzie’s family of this change in disposition status. Why not?   

 

Ozzie was immediately killed the following morning after Mr. Blankfeld’s pre- vacation announcement. He was killed September 17, not a minute wasted, a rush to just get the killing done. No one advised us (a normal courtesy extended to and by most attorneys and government). The county government “won” in a manipulated race to kill an innocent animal that had options. What does that make you?  

 

Multnomah county animal control works to kill with full Multnomah County approval. 

 

They dummy up reasons to buttress their preferences in order to “clear house”, shove out citizens who offer humane options to killing, and refuse alternatives considered questioning their will and “authority”.   

 

The phony subjective and biased  temperament “assessments” by kennel care staff lead by kennel care technician   Stephanie Collingsworth (who has no formal certification in assessment) are used to rationalize preferences and  useful false conclusions. 

 

This was kennel care technician Stephanie Collingsworth’s “behavior” assessment of Ozzie after months of solitary confinement: that she:  “easily entered the kennel, dog readily took hand fed treats and sat.when treats were withheld dog again began to arouse with hard jumping on me … (no doubt after months of solitary confinement he wanted more treats)”; “avoidance and discomfort noted when reached for and patted (lip licking, ears pinned”. 

 

 In short he was afraid. Ms. Collingsworth then as one would predict dutifully decided he should be killed because of the above noted behavior; offering no life saving options. She did her job. Ms. Collingsworth has no certification or credentials to assess behavior; she keeps her own counsel and the agency’s goals in mind. That is her job: to “back up” agency decisions regardless of merit as a cheerleader for agency preferences. There is no qualified or certified behaviorist employed at MCAS for good reason.

 

At the same time Ozzie was killed, MCAS just released a dog that had killed a dog to an organization stating they wanted to give the dog a “second chance”; that was laudable, but Ozzie has no political connections .Ozzie belonged to a homeless person whom he last saw almost a year ago so he is soft prey. Ozzie was a loving dog, noted to extraordinarily love towards people, held for nearly a year in solitary confinement. He did very well under the circumstances. However the agency goal was always to kill him. Ms. Collingsworth knows the agency’s agenda.

 

There was no reason to kill Ozzie or to deny him humane life saving options. He is gone now. The crime is that he died alone, away from family or familiar faces,  just one more  incinerated animal statistic at animal control where he was injected with fatal plus before dying following almost a year of solitary confinement.

 

What greater cruelty is there than government sponsored animal cruelty?

 

 He will be, no doubt, classified by Stephanie Collingsworth “unhealthy/untreatable” because MCAS is trying for Maddies’s Funds monies again and the “prize” this year for no treatable/rehabilitatable animals killed in a year is their goal. So just chose a label of convenience: make it up as you go along. 

 

Ozzie never saw his family or those he loved him again, or sunlight or green grass, No staff is allowed to talk or engage with animals on security or intake. Was death a relief from loneliness?

 

 He was a good dog with a correctable problem. He died alone and uncared for at an agency that deceives the public and masquerades as a “shelter”. No one called: easier to kill in the dark behind deliberately closed doors.

 

Remembering Ozzie: I remember Ozzie from our visit on April 04 of this year when we went to evaluate options for another dog belonging to a homeless owner, Harley; a blue heeler pit bull at MCAS designated level 4. His owner had signed him over to us for disposition, the only reason he is alive now.

 

 He is our family dog now and a wonderful one he is. We gave Ozzie cookies under the baleful disapproving watch of the young staff person there to ensure we followed the rules (no eye contact with other dogs, no happy talk, no engagement, and no treats. 15 minutes).  I didn’t know we weren’t allowed to give other dogs including Ozzie any treats. So I did. It seemed the kind thing to do. He loved them. I told him we would be back for him soon.

 

But I was wrong. It is an anguishing thought that I trusted this government at all. I didn’t count on MCAS zealous desire to kill whenever it can. That is their elected mission, one that echoes a remark made on Television channel two over a decade ago by a senior staff person still employed at MCAS:  “We can’t kill the owners so we kill their dogs.”  

 

And they do: with full county government approval.

 

Ozzie is gone now. May God comfort his soul and heal his unnecessary suffering brought to him and delivered by the hands of this appalling inhumane county endorsed government agency.  And may he live forever in the hearts of all who knew or met him including me that one day in April when I gave him a treat. May God bless Ozzie and take his suffering away. He was a good boy. He didn’t deserve to die like this.

 

Gail O'Connell-Babcock, PhD

Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog

Telephone: 503.625.4563

 

 

Portland Oregon Imposes Conditions Homeless Can't Meet So Dogs Are Killed In Animal Friendly Portland

The practice of imposing conditions for release  that the homeless simply  can’t meet  because they have no homes:  Creating a mandatory requirement as you  have with Charlie that  a secure enclosure be built  can’t be met by homeless  persons because  they don’t own property upon which  to build a secure enclosure. It amounts to extorted surrender. I see this condition imposed over and over again.

 

You must come up with flexible solutions that permit companion animals to be returned to homeless persons without imposing impossible fines and conditions. Protecting public safety is indeed possible while seeking humane solutions, solutions that allow the return of animals to the homeless. Exploiting homelessness to force surrender is unacceptable.

 

I am asking that the county implement policy changes addressing these concerns beginning with Charlie. Repeatedly homeless persons lose their animals to an inflexible indifferent system that exploits the most vulnerable populations and their companion animals. That has to stop.  .

 

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD

Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog

Telephone: 503.625.4563.

 

 

Finally  an agency induced factor that must end is  Michael Oswalds' policy  prohibiting staff from acknowledging, speaking to, giving treats, or engaging animals on Security ( and Intake). It is a senseless cruel unnecessary policy that creates a climate extraordinarily hostile to animal mental health, far worse then any "crime " committed. After destroying  an animal's mental health through deliberate isolation, lack of exercise and lack of stimulation, the animal is then declared " unadoptable"/"unsafe" and "offered" to rescue or killed. Prisoners of war have more protections.. 

 

This cruel and inhumane "animal care"  policy must be immediately stopped;

 

Finally what will Multnomah County do about this chronically low ethical bar?

Why Does Portland Oregon Allow Animal Control To Jackboot Homeless & Their Animals?

To: The Multnomah County County Aniaml Services

CC: Multnomah County Commission

 

I understand that all that prevents the writ of review for Ozzie, going forward is Michael Holter and his mother's poverty. Michael Holter is homeless and suffers form depression. Neither he nor his mother have $500 for the writ of review to now move forward/proceed..

 

I will raise that money. I will also point out MCAS s rigid intransigence and prejudice towards the poor and homeless once again. Ozzie is a Level 2, a repeat offense in going after a small dog as he was exiting the vehicle. His mother asked the neighbor to hold onto his dog while she exited and he did not 

 

Why do you think killing for this offense, ( if  there was any injury to the other dog  at all, it was negligible ) is the only solution? That seems extraordinarily vindictive. Ironically MCAS strikes deals with dogs sponsored by organizations over far more serious greater offenses. I can illustrate that very recently. Furthermore MCAS made visiting Ozzie virtually impossible for his owners. The restrictions were a total of 15 minutes, divided into 5 minute segments, 5 minutes each since there were three persons: Michael, his sister, and mother, no treats, not allowed to get out and exercise. The restrictions border on sadism. There is no public safety reason for them at all, just cruelty. And they are commonplace at this agency. .

 

I wil raise the $500. And I am asking for an outside professional expert review of MCAS enforcement. This cannot continue.  The records for Ozzie are among those attached. 

 

Gail O'Connell-Babcock

503.625.4563

WatchDog Reveals Shelter's Solitary Confinement Since March 25

Osiriz, MCAS 533804

Date of confinement: March 25, 2013

Date of release: open

 

The need for significant changes in MCAS animal care policies

 

Summary: Osiriz is a 7 year old male black and tan Rottweiler mix with a dash of Border Collie. He has belonged to a young homeless man, John Young, since he was a puppy.

 

 Everyone who has befriended John who knows Osiriz on the streets describes him as a good dog: flirtatious with female dogs, loves to play with small dogs (has had a Chihuahua playmate); OK with neutered male dogs but not as good with non-neutered male dogs. He is good with people and protective of his owner when his owner is threatened. He has lots of energy and likes to play.

 

 The recorded incidents associated with him are understandable in context and preventable:  most recently a bite during a fight among young adults and friends noted that the only time Osiriz seems aggressive is when John is being assaulted, a bite to a shoe that did not break the skin, barking and growling at the end of a leash when an officer approached, and likely related to how the leash was held. When it is held tightly it conveys anxiety to a dog.

 

Current status: Osiriz has been held isolated in solitary confinement, deprived of exercise, social attention and play for 98 days now.  MCAS has done nothing to relive his stress, and this is a dog that is very bonded to people, other than to provide a Kong a day which they just took away as punishment. Osiriz is reported to have lunged at someone giving him dinner. Small wonder given the agency practices that function to deliberately elevate stress. As with Harley, a former inmate, he is demonstrating stress levels caused by MCAS incarceration practices.

 

I am asking that you at least put out a treat bucket and engage him socially by talking to him. But most of all MCAS preoccupation with “danger” interferes severely with human animal care. There must be a better balance. Harley, the pit bull blue heeler manifested the same symptoms. Incarceration at MCAS is a highly stressful experience that causes dogs’ mental health deterioration. Then MCAS blames the dog.

 

On May 21 Officer Michelle Luckey asked Stephanie Collingsworth to do an “assessment” on Osirz. How is it possible to lock up a dog as a solitary prisoner for over 3 months and refer to that as an assessment not a set up? No one could call this an assessment except of the debilitating effects of MCAS’s poor animal care practices. 

 

When MCAS confines a dog for over 3 months with nothing to do please don’t refer to his agency induced reaction as an “assessment”. Entering a dog’s only cramped space gives you a measure of fear and loneliness caused by incarceration not the dog’s nature.

 

Restrictive Visitors’ Policies: Mr. Oswald’s visitor policies deprive animals of needed socialization and play required for mental health. In April 2013 Mr. Oswald said he would review them. It is almost July and he has not. The visitors policy for animals impounded at MCAs are so restrictive that hey cause further suffering and have no relation to pubic safety. They are simply arbitrary, harsh and intentional so that the effect is to stop families from visiting altogether.

 

These are the policies (identified in records):

 

·        One must call ahead for an appointment that last only 15 minutes. If there are tree family members the 15 minutes is divided into 5 minute segments. Citizens must travel often from long distances only to be allowed to see their dog at the kennel grate.

·        John Young was only permitted to see his dog once at the kennel door. To enter the kennel special permission must be granted.

·        No treats are allowed

·        No outside exercise play in one of the enclosed yards

 

This is just the short version of the restrictions for visiting one’s impounded dog. They have no foundation  in public safety, are arbitrary and cruel and discourage needed play and socialization. Prisoners at maximum security prisons and at Guantanamo Bay have more personal freedom.

 

This must change. MCAS is a publicly funded agency supported by taxpayers’ dollars. It is has intentionally adopted policies that harm animals and disrupt the guardian/animal bond. It is run not as a shelter but rather as a prison suiting the preferences of the director not the public that funds it.

 

Please return to the flexible  open humane  rules of engagement present before. 

 

Navy Spurns California’s Request to Reduce Injury to Marine Mammals off Coast

LOS ANGELES - August 19 - The U.S. Navy has indicated that it intends to disregard the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) recommendations to mitigate the harmful effects of Navy sonar and offshore training exercises on the state’s marine mammals. In a letter dated July 31, 2013, the Navy responded to the CCC’s March objection, which concluded that the Navy’s planned training and testing activities in Southern California would not be consistent with California coastal law.

The Navy’s plans would allow a radical increase in sonar training and underwater detonations off Southern California, beginning in January 2014. While the Navy says it is open to negotiation, it refuses in its letter to abide by any of the state’s recommended mitigation measures, such as avoiding training in globally important foraging habitat for the endangered blue whale. The Navy’s review comes in the wake of several new studies showing that its Southern California activities are harming marine mammal species, such as blue whales and beaked whales, far more than was previously known.

Following is a statement from Natural Resources Defense Council’s marine mammal project director, Michael Jasny:

“The Navy’s plan to dramatically increase its sonar training and underwater detonations off the Southern California coast shouldn’t come at the expense of the state’s marine life. Its proposal blatantly disregards new science showing that current training levels could already be devastating California’s beaked whale populations and preventing endangered blue whales from recovering from near-extinction.

The Coastal Commission has offered reasonable measures that take into account the Navy’s need for flexibility while affording greater protection to vulnerable species. The Navy’s refusal to adopt any of these measures puts California’s marine life in jeopardy.”

Background:

Beginning next January, the Navy plans to dramatically increase sonar training and underwater detonations off of Southern California over the next five years. The Navy estimates that it would kill 130 marine mammals outright, permanently deafen another 1,600, and significantly disrupt feeding, calving and other vital behaviors more than 8.8 million times in the process. 

Compared with its previous exercises in the region, these numbers represent a 1,300 percent increase.

Each year, the Navy would run more than 10,000 hours of the same high-intensity military sonar that has killed and injured whales around the globe. In addition, the Navy would detonate more than 50,000 underwater explosives off the Southern California coast.

Hundreds of these explosives would pack enough charge to sink a warship, which is exactly what they’re used for.

For some species, like the magnificent gray whales that migrate up and down our coast, the incidence of harm is several times the size of their entire populations. The most vulnerable marine mammals are the beaked whales, a family of species that are considered acutely sensitive to Navy sonar, with documented injury and death.

 A government study published earlier this year found that beaked whale populations have indeed declined substantially in the California Current over the past 20 years, and suggests that the Navy’s range may have become a population sink, making it difficult for them to breed or bring their calves to maturity. Another Southern California study found that the Navy’s frequent sonar training poses significant risks to the recovery of endangered blue whales, whose numbers have not rebounded in the Pacific since commercial whaling was banned more than 25 years ago.

###

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

3 Controversial Pipelines You've Never Heard Of

While the national debate remains largely focused on President Obama’s impending decision regarding the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, communities across the U.S. and Canada are grappling with the oil and gas industry’s rapidly expanding pipeline network — cutting through their backyards, threatening water supplies, and leaving them vulnerable to devastating spills.

As production booms in Alberta’s tar sands and fracking opens up vast oil and natural gas deposits around America, companies are increasingly desperate for new pipelines to get their product to market.

 “We’ve so narrowly focused on Keystone that a lot of these other projects aren’t getting the scrutiny they probably need,” said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust. 

He explains that as production skyrockets and companies look to cash in, no one is really in charge of it all. “We’re leaving it up to these individual companies to come up with their own solutions to figure out how to move energy and we don’t have any national policy guiding those decisions.”

According to a recent analysis of federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data, since 1986 there have been nearly 8,000 incidents, resulting in more than 500 deaths, more than 2,300 injuries, and nearly $7 billion in damage.
Here are three of the most recent pipeline controversies emerging around the country:

1. Bluegrass Pipeline

Land owners and protesters gather on the steps of the Kentucky state capitol to protest the Bluegrass Pipeline.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Dylan Lovan

Opposition is growing to the proposed 500-mile bluegrass pipeline, which would transport flammable natural gas liquids across Kentucky to an existing line that terminates in the Gulf. 

Landowners and environmentalists gathered at the state capital last week to protest the project, which they fear would threaten water supplies and safety. Residents were caught off guard by the project — landowner Stacie Meyer said she noticed survey markers going up near her property and had to search the internet and consult her neighbors to find out what they were for. 

Locals are concerned the company, Williams Co., could use imminent domain to seize the land if opposition proves too strong. As the Courier-Journal reported, “Brad Slutskin, a Woodford County landowner who spoke at the rally, said the pipeline companies are threatening condemnation based on a loose interpretation of Kentucky law, and most property owners don’t have the money to mount a court challenge.

” Residents opposed to the pipeline — including a group of nuns and monks who are refusing to give up their land for the project — delivered a petition with more than 5,200 signatures asking Gov. Beshear to include pipeline and eminent domain-related issues in the upcoming special legislative session, which he refused. 

“Knowing a pipeline is coming through, is like waiving a red flag to the creatures of the Earth. God created Earth as our land to use not abuse,” Sister Joetta Venneman told local WAVE News.

As the gas fields north and east of Kentucky boom, the state will likely find itself in the crosshairs of many battles to come. In fact, while the fifth Kentucky county was passing a resolution opposing the Bluegrass Pipeline on Wednesday, the Courier-Journal reported that the project may already have some competition — a joint venture to convert an existing natural gas line called the Tennessee Gas Pipeline.

2. Energy East Pipeline

Milo Zeankowski-Giffin, left, and Max Griefen hold signs during a Montpelier, VT tar sands pipeline protest.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Toby Talbot

Facing resistance in the U.S. over its Keystone XL proposal, TransCanada Corp. is moving forward with plans for another tar sands pipeline project that would carry almost as much crude as Keystone. The new pipeline, the most expensive in TransCanada’s history, would run from Alberta to the Atlantic seaboard, ending where a new deep-water marine terminal would be built to export the crude overseas.

 In early August, TransCanada said it received the long-term contracts for about 900,000 barrels of crude per day and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already indicated his support for the project.

TransCanada’s proposal has been met with stiff opposition from Canadian environmentalists and native leaders — particularly in Quebec, where Premier Pauline Marois has halted natural gas exploration while last month’s deadly Lac-Megantic crude oil train explosion is still being cleaned up. 

The $12 billion development plan calls for converting 1,864 miles of an existing, 55-year-old pipeline currently used for natural gas to carry the oil. Though the proposed route does not cross into the U.S., it does skirt the border with Maine. 

Perhaps most worrisome to residents of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, however, is that the increased shipping capacity from Alberta will impact another pipeline — the 70-year-old Portland Pipeline. Currently, the pipeline is used to ship crude into Canada but residents are concerned the flow will be reversed to bring Canadian tar sands into the U.S.

 As the Boston Globe explains, “this would provide Canada — whose Alberta-centered oil industry is suffering from too much supply and too little access to overseas markets — its first direct pipeline to a year-round, deep-water port.” Residents throughout New England are staunchly opposed to the region becoming a conduit for the dirtiest form of fossil fuel production, holding anti-pipeline demonstrations in Portland, while 29 Vermont communities passed resolutions banning tar sands oil from the state.

For now, residents of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are left with little option other than waiting to see how the Energy East pipeline development may impact the Portland Pipeline. In a statement released earlier this month, the company said, “It is uncertain to us what the entire impact of this proposed project might be on crude movements and crude supplies for the East Coast. We are continuing to evaluate this recent development.”

3. Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline Project

Keystone pipeline in yellow, Eastern in blue and red. Graphic credit: Paul Horn, InsideClimate News

Enbridge’s proposed 774-mile pipeline would run from Illinois to Louisiana and carry oil from North Dakota’s Bakken formation, as well as Canadian tar sands. The pipeline would be capable of transporting almost as much crude as Keystone XL and, as Inside Climate News reports, will likely sail through the regulatory process because much of the pipeline is already constructed as a natural gas line. 

“Converting pipelines makes [approval] easier and riskier, too,” explains Weimer. “Keystone is brand new, state of the art pipeline with its own set of problems. Enbridge on the other hand, is converting other pipelines that have already been in the ground for years — putting in new types of crude or switching natural gas to liquid on pipelines that aren’t built to today’s standards. Those old pipes being re-purposed certainly presents a new risk.”

While the Keystone decision is momentarily stalled, Eastern Gulf is just one of many new pipelines being built to ship North American oil to the Gulf Coast for refining and export. According to Inside Climate, “Enbridge plans to build thousands of miles of pipelines over the next few years, including an expansion of its Alberta Clipper pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin. If approved, that line would ship up to 880,000 barrels of Canadian crude into the United States each day, compared to the Keystone’s capacity of 830,000 barrels per day.”

Last month, all five members of Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission approved increasing the flow of the Alberta Clipper line while refusing concerned citizens the opportunity to testify publicly. The initial expansion still awaits approval from multiple government agencies but Enbridge already has its sights set on a second expansion, which wasn’t discussed at the meeting. The protesters, including several Native American representatives, fear their communities could soon face the same devastating impacts of tar sands development being felt in Alberta. Marty Cobenais of Bemidji, part of the Indigenous Environmental Network, told the Bemidji Pioneer that the pipeline is a major issue for his Red Lake community. “This is huge,” he said. “This is in our back yard.”

A worker cleans up oil in Mayflower, AR days after a pipeline ruptured and spewed oil over lawns and roadways.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Jeannie Nuss

These fights are just three of many being waged by citizens across the country. Alabama residents, for instance, have been protesting multiple pipeline projects — including the Plains All-American oil pipeline, which would run 41 miles to Mississippi and through a section of Mobile’s drinking water supply.

Though pipeline companies are seeking to capitalize on the Lac-Megantic tragedy to tout the safety of crude transport over rail, the devastating impacts of pipeline spills are impossible to overlook. Last week, the New York Times profiled two communities in Michigan and Arkansas that are forever changed by tar sands pipeline spills. Though it’s been three years since Enbridge’s pipeline rupture that spewed more than 840,000 gallons of tar sands crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the region is far from restored. And even despite EPA’s recent order for Exxon to dredge the river, an EPA spokeswoman estimated that 1620,000 gallons of oil will remain in the Kalamazoo.

And in March, an Exxon Mobil pipeline burst, spilling an estimated 210,000 gallons of crude into a Mayflower, Arkansas neighborhood. What’s left behind is bleak: “Four months later, the neighborhood of low-slung brick homes is largely deserted, a ghostly column of empty driveways and darkened windows, the silence broken only by the groan of heavy machinery pawing at the ground as remediation continues.” As Inside Climate News has continued to report, residents are now grappling with the long-term effects of the toxic spill, including the difficult process of relocating their families and the frightnening health complications that have begun to manifest. 

In addition to re-purposing old pipelines, there are several aspects of the unchecked expansion of fossil fuel pipelines across the country that has Weimer concerned. First, pipeline regulation needs to be strengthened and clarified.

 He explains that right now, “regulations are written in such a way that to a vast degree, it’s left up to the pipeline companies to figure out how safe their pipelines are and what to do about it.” And it’s not just oversight — planning future pipeline routes is also dictated by the companies themselves. “The way we leave it up to each company means we could have multiple pipelines from different companies moving [their products] through the same place. Each company is just trying to capitalize and make money. State and local government really hasn’t thought about it much — is unprepared — and pipelines will go into place before there are policies to guide the construction. It can really affect the way local communities may develop and often happens before the community has any sense of what they can do about it.”

Why Not Use Passive Resistance Or Civil Disobedience?

The reason country after country around the world bans GMO products is because their people vote with their $$$$, politicians listen, then they vote politically to ban GMO....people are involved and concerned. 

The reasons GMO's are still being swallowed by many Americans is that they're too busy texting the person walking next to them to be concerned about real issues.  They're oblivious to what's being shoved down their willing throats, they've forgotten that they already have more power than any legislation.  Just STOP SUPPORTING GMO's or whatever it is that is offending you.....even Giants fall when the public yanks their support.

Sadly, I fear the same is true for virtually every important issue in America, including rescues vs shelters.  

Americans have forgotten how to vote with their feet, or their $$$.

It is the "public" who demands the convenience of paying shelters a small intake fee to kill Fluffy because his fur looks untidy on their new carpet. 

When they want to "replace" Fluffy after the carpet is worn, or for some other emotional trivial reason, they demand shelters with loads of animals and no adoption criteria other than the adopter possess a pulse and the fee. 

These people couldn't care less that Rescues don't take salaries, are overworked and overburdened...who cares?  Rescues demand more from their adopters, they do home inspections, require references and much more than just a pulse.

Truth be told, the public supports shelters because they do their dirty, paid killing and they're also at the other end of the circle of profit when the fickle public is again ready to adopt another Fluffy or Fido.

The only segment of the population who might give a rip about the obscenities called Shelters, are those gracious, kind souls who truly believe they are saving animals lives and they freely give their assets, homes, trust funds and millions from open check books to support the most visible options, which are the high profile shelters.

Isn't the trick to inform those who want to know where their money is being spent? 

That their money is being spent for hefty salaries, fancy ridiculous buildings and other ostentatious campaigns might concern the ones writing the big checks.   I'm quite sure the ones dumping Fluffy for the new carpet aren't the ones with the open check books.  Some large contributors might still choose to support the illusion, others might be incensed that they have been taken for an expensive ride.

Happy Tails isn't an Oregon Rescue, but my method has always been to choose which games to play and exercise passive resistance to other games which the powers that be are trying to include me, but I reject, such as SB6....

SB6 requires blah, blah, blah of licensed facilities.....nothing is yet finalized, the reading of what a facility is doesn't sound like a private home, there is no neat flow chart of exactly what to do for a rescue.  

The details can stall any operation, what does "solicit" donations really mean,  what if you receive gifts rather than donations, what if you have 11 animals, but really some belong to your great aunt in another state and are visiting, can't you fabricate numerous stall tactics that would exclude you from playing the SB6 game?

So, why get a license, why close your doors, why "what if" every impossible to imagine, dreadful scenario until all of the facts & details are worked out, until then meeting SB6 with silence might be a better option. 

No registration, no licensing, no playing their game.  Force them to spend effort, money, time etc, use the No Trespassing signs etc.....why make it easy for them and perform exactly the way they thought you would....by closing your doors.

Just my perspective....

Toni
Happy Tails Rescue


 The refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust. Practitioners of civil disobediance basing their actions on moral right and usually employ the nonviolent technique of passive resistance in order to bring wider attention to the injustice. Risking punishment, such as violent retaliatory acts or imprisonment, they attempt to bring about changes in the law. In the modern era, civil disobedience has been used in such events as street demonstrations, marches, the occupying of buildings, and strikes and other forms of economic resistance.

Source(s): http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0909663.html