tyranny (6)

Priests threatened with arrest if they minister to military during shutdown In a stunning development, some military priests are facing arrest if they celebrate mass or practice their faith on military bases during  the federal government shutdown. “With the government shutdown, many [government service] and contract priests who minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide are not  permitted to work – not even to volunteer,” wrote John Schlageter, the  general counsel for the Archdiocese for the Military Services USA, in an op-ed this week. “During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to minister on  base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do so.” According to its website, the Archdiocese for the Military Services “provides the Catholic  Church’s full range of pastoral ministries and spiritual services to  those in the United States Armed Forces.” In his piece, Schlageter worries about this restriction as Sunday  nears. “If the government shutdown continues through the weekend, there  will be no Catholic priest to celebrate Mass this Sunday in the chapels  at some U.S. military installations where non-active-duty priests serve  as government contractors,” he wrote. Because of the lack of active-duty Catholic chaplains, the military  relies on hiring civilian priests to serve as government service and  contract ministers. Those civilian priests are not allowed on the bases  during a shutdown, Schlageter wrote. One Republican lawmaker on the House Intelligence Committee told The  Daily Caller on Friday that this “crosses a constitutional line.” “The constitutional rights of those who put their lives on the line  for this nation do not end with a government slowdown,” Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, a graduate of West Point and an Army veteran, said in a Friday  statement. ”It is completely irresponsible for the president to turn his back on every American’s First Amendment rights by furloughing military contract clergy.” Added Pompeo: “The President’s strategy during the slowdown, just as  during the sequestration, is to create as much pain as possible.  However, this action crosses a constitutional line of obstructing every  U.S. service member’s ability to practice his or her religion.” http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/04/priests-threatened-with-arrest-if-they-minister-to-military-during-shutdown/
Read more…

RT: Court rules journalists can’t keep their sources secret

Published time: July 19, 2013 21:04 Edited time: July 20, 2013 16:41

Reuters / Russell BoyceReuters / Russell Boyce

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that New York Times journalist James Risen must testify in the trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency officer accused of leaking classified national defense information to the media.

A lower court ruled previously that Risen could protect the source responsible for sharing intelligence about a CIA operation discussed in his writing, but the US Court of Appeals from the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision Friday morning with a 2-1 vote.

The reporter must appear and give testimony just as every other citizen must. We are not at liberty to conclude otherwise,” Chief Judge William Traxler Jr. wrote for the majority opinion.

The appeal panel’s decision came just days after United States Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama with a proposal that would re-shape current law as it applies to journalists in order to more greatly ensure that reporters aren’t targeted during investigations unless other routes that exhausted first. That maneuver came on the heels of two highly public recent Justice Department scandals in which the White House was revealed to have subpoenaed the phones records for several Associated Press offices and also the email history of Fox News reporter James Rosen.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law,” Obama said during a May 23 address after those scandals first surfaced.

With Friday’s ruling, the appeals court weighed whether or not an established precedent would prevent Risen from being asked to disclose the source of his information, but Traxler said, “so long as the subpoena is issued in good faith and is based on a legitimate need of law enforcement, the government need not make any special showing to obtain evidence of criminal conduct from a reporter in a criminal proceeding.”

Next Risen will be expected to testify in the Espionage Act-case against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official accused of disclosing details about a Clinton administration plan to put faulty nuclear weapon blueprints to Iran in an effort to slow down their race to acquiring a nuke. He previously said he’d refuse to speak of his source, however, which would now open up the possibility of being held in contempt of court.

Sterling is one of seven persons accused by President Barack Obama of spying under the Espionage Act, a World War One-era legislation that has previously been used only three times before this administration began targeting leakers.

Judge Roger Gregory, the only justice to vote in the minority, said compelling Risen to testify was a “sad” decision that posed a serious threat to investigative journalism, the Times reported.

Under the majority’s articulation of the reporter’s privilege, or lack thereof, absent a showing of bad faith by the government, a reporter can always be compelled against her will to reveal her confidential sources in a criminal trial,” Gregory wrote. “The majority exalts the interests of the government while unduly trampling those of the press, and in doing so, severely impinges on the press and the free flow of information in our society.”

Judge Traxler disagreed, however, and along with Judge Roger Gregory wrote that even the US Constitution can’t keep Risen from being asked to take the witness stand.

There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source,” Traxler wrote.

Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Times he viewed the verdict as “disappointing,” and even suggested it was a step-backwards only so few days after Holder’s alleged effort to ensure the privacy of sources and reporters.

Read more…

water

Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state  ownership over all rainwater - ponds and swales restricted - jail time for  violators

MikeAdams.jpgSunday, July 29, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all  articles...)
1,731
Social-Print-Button.gifSocial-Email-Button.gifSocial-Share-Button.gif
OL-300x250-static.jpg
(NaturalNews)  There's nothing more refreshing than standing in a cool, summertime rain shower.  Or bathing in the warm sunlight on a crisp spring day. Or inhaling the cool  autumn air, fresh with the scent of turning leaves and pine needles. These  things -- rainwater, sunlight, air -- have long been assumed to be not only  free, but un-claimable. You can't claim to own the sunlight that falls on my  front yard, for example. A corporation can't claim intellectual property  ownership over the air that you breathe and demand you pay a royalty for  inhaling.
But today, Jackson County, Oregon says it owns YOUR rainwater,  and the county has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him over $1500,  for the supposed "crime" of collecting rainwater on his own  property.
The man's name is Gary Harrington, and he owns over 170 acres  of land in Jackson County. On that land, he has three ponds, and those ponds  collect rainwater that falls on his land. Common sense would say Gary has every  right to have ponds with water on his 170 acres of land, but common sense has  been all but abandoned in the state of Oregon.
Much like California,  Oregon is increasingly becoming a collectivist state. You didn't build that! The  government built that! You don't own that! The government owns that! That  rainwater that just fell on your land? That's the government's rainwater, and  you're going to jail if you try to steal from the government!
That's the  explanation from Jackson County officials, who initially granted Harrington  "permits" to build ponds back in 2003. Yes, in Oregon you actually need to beg  for permission from the government just to have a pond on your own land. But the  state of Oregon revoked his permits a few years later, after he had already  created the ponds, thus putting Harrington in the position of being a "water  criminal" who was "stealing" rainwater from the state.
Tom Paul,  administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, is an obedient water  Nazi. He insists, "Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon  is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to  store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before  doing that activity."
What he means, of course, is not that the water is  "public" water, but that it's government water. The government owns it,  and if you "steal" from the government by, for example, collecting rainwater off  your own roof, you will go to jail.
Thus, even when rainwater falls on  your own property, you don't own it! The government owns it. You didn't build  that! The government built that. That's not YOUR land, you only lease it from  the King, and by the way, your property tax is due again...
Harrington  said that he will never stop fighting the government on this issue. As reported  in CNS News: "When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you  have to put your foot down and say, This is wrong; you just can't take away  anymore of my rights and from here on in, I'm going to fight it." (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-col...)

If states claim they own the rain, they may soon claim to own the sunlight,  too

Rainwater, it turns out, isn't the only thing that falls on your land.  Sunlight also falls on your land. Air resides above it, and minerals below  it.
If the state of Oregon already claims to own all the water that falls  on your land, what's to stop them from claiming ownership over all the sunlight,  too? Imagine a day when the state erects solar panels on your land, but  the electricity isn't yours to keep. You still have to pay for it, because the  sunlight belongs to the state, get it?
If you erect your own solar panels  on your own land, the state could then arrest you and charge you with "stealing"  state property. All those photons, you see, belong to the state. Once the state  declares sunlight to be "community property," you instantly become a criminal  for having solar panels on your  house.

Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/036615_Oregon_rainwater_permaculture.html#ixzz222zXBr1c

Read more…

ia Becomes First To Ban Travelers Who Refuse Naked Body Scanners

1
0
Order to stand down, and comply, or you don't fly! Total control.

Australia's attempt at a "no scan, no fly" policy is surely to be cited as a precedent for global travel, including the United States, as the journey from "opt-out" to "mandatory" continues unimpeded.

We must continue to expose the corrupt authoritarians that are forcing this dangerous technology upon us even as we make our voices heard that we see through their lies and distortions. We must also reach out to airport workers who are being affected the most by these X-ray machines.

The corporatist political structure will never stop without mass outrage, mass non-cooperation, and a mass stand-down by those on the front lines of the war against human dignity and human rights.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/aust...o-ban.html
Read more…

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives