Hi Everyone,
Here is a great essay from Pete du Pont. I voted for Pete back in 1988 when he ran for President. He had great ideas then and still does now. Read and tell me what you think.
Have a good one
Tom Brown.
***************************************************************
Sapping America's Energy
Global-warming legislation would drive up the cost of everything.
By Pete du Pont
Wall Street Journal
April 16, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980462156321035.html
If Americans don't start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation's energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America's people would be substantial and detrimental.
As Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted last month, "Waxman-Markey would put big government in charge of how much energy people can use. It would be the biggest government intervention in people's lives since the second world war, which was the last time people had to have rationing coupons in order to buy a gallon of gas." And for what? According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth's average rate of warming in the 30 years from 1977 to 2007 was just 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and the global surface temperature has remained virtually flat since 1998.
The Waxman-Markey bill contains some serious mistakes. Slighting nuclear power is one. Nuclear plants generate no carbon dioxide or other pollution, and the 104 already in operation provide America with 73% of its CO2-free electricity generation. It is estimated that each new nuclear plant would employ some 2,000 workers to build and 500 to 600 people to operate. America could use some 40 more nuclear plants, but in the Waxman bill and the Obama administration's policies, additional nuclear power plants are likely nonexistent.
Cap-and-trade policies are another part of the bill intended to give the government more regulatory authority over the energy industry and a great deal more money--perhaps trillions of dollars--some of which would be available to grant to favored people and industries. The bill's outline does not say who would the energy allowances free, who would have to pay for them, and how much they would pay, but it does intend to make energy much more expensive and less available to consumers. Electricity, oil and large manufacturing businesses (which are jointly responsible for 85% of America's greenhouse emissions) would have to obtain at some price federal government pollution permits--"tradable federal permits," or "allowances," for each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. These permits would require reduced plant emissions over time, from a mandate of 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, to 20% in 2020, 42% in 2030, and 83% in 2050.
Another economic mistake at the core of the Waxman bill is the reinstatement of protectionism. Since America's energy restrictions would not apply to manufacturers of goods America imports, unregulated foreign companies could sell their goods in America at lower costs, and thus U.S. manufacturers could be "put at a disadvantage relative to overseas competitors." The Waxman bill would seek to remedy this by making companies eligible for rebates determined and allocated by Washington. If the president found that the rebates "do not substantially correct competitive imbalances" he could establish what Mr. Waxman calls a "border adjustment program" that would require foreign companies to pay for special allowances to "cover" the "carbon contained in U.S.-bound products."
In other words, America would add an international carbon tariff--a global energy tax--to imported goods (just as there was in the Boxer-Lieberman bill that was defeated last year). That would amount to strong protectionism and lead to matching tariffs on goods exported from America.
Not included in the Waxman discussion draft summary is the question of what will become of the cash the government would receive from selling the cap-and-trade allowances. In the Boxer-Lieberman bill, it was estimated that auctioning off half the permits would gain the government some $3.3 trillion by 2050, and that would be handed out by the government to pet projects like "environmental" job training, "wildlife adaptation," international aid, domestic mass transit and so on.
But rather than creating a new subsidy, wouldn't we be better off distributing those revenues to the American people, who would have to pay the carbon tax through higher-priced electricity and manufactured goods? Such an idea was recently offered by author Peter Barnes: send the trillions of dollars received from the companies buying the permits to people as a "cap-and-trade dividend" in the form of equal personal checks for all Americans. The Obama administration thinks the opposite--that a majority of the money raised by cap-and-trade should be sent only to taxpayers making under a certain amount as a part of his Making Work Pay credit.
The Waxman-Markey plan intends to give the federal government near-total control of America's energy supplies and usage. Depending upon how the allowances are organized, it may also create the largest redistribution of money from American families to the federal government since the creation of the American income tax. To keep America prospering, our economy growing, and jobs expanding, we need not less energy, but more of it; not higher energy prices but lower ones; and more energy generation through nuclear power, clean coal and offshore oil and gas as well as possible new energy sources. Waxman-Markey will take us in one direction, but to keep America prospering we need to go in the opposite one.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ms.Napolitano should step down now!
I can not believe what the Obama Administration is doing with Ms. Napolitano. As an American I am ashamed at treating Canada like this. Canada is America's best friend. Free Trade with Canada works unlike Mexico. We have the largest undefended border in the world and for Ms. Napolitano comparing it to Mexico is totally crazy. I believe President Obama should ask her to step down.
Below are two article that appeared in a Canadian Newspaper National Post. See what they say about her. I agree with them.
Tom Brown
North American Freedom
******************************************************************************
National Post editorial board
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009
"U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in January 2009.
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
Just what does that mean, exactly?
Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Story Link
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1520295
*********************************************************************
Don Martin: Napolitano makes Bush administration look well informed
Posted: April 21, 2009, 6:05 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Don Martin
Update: Chris Selley: Making the Bush administration look well-informed
This is borderline insanity.
The most worrisome American official confronting Canada today is a former Arizona governor who thinks the U.S. northern border, which she’s only flown over and never actually crossed on the ground, is a security threat on par with the drug-running, immigrant-smuggling, terrorist-sneaking border wall with Mexico.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is moving unapologetically forward on beefed-up border staffing and enhanced documentation requirements that will make Canadians and travelling Americans yearn for the security paranoia of the George W. Bush administration.
Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.
She actually invoked the bogeyman of 9/11 terrorists sneaking into the United States from Canada to bolster the case for a crackdown, even though the most elementary research would have told her there’s no evidence to support that bogus claim.
When challenged on her concerns, she insisted still-secret data, undoubtedly buried with the aliens at Roswell, justifies her concern. She surely must know that only 12 of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives caught between 1993 and 2001 were illegal immigrants and none of those came from Canada.
And there’s simply no comparison between the illegal entry trickle from Canada and the alien immigrant wave and drug smuggling surge pouring into the U.S. from the south. Of the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. each year, 57% come from Mexico. Just six per cent of those living illegally in the United States are Canadian.
Somebody should also warn the Secretary that recent statistics show 500,000 Canadians spent tourist dollars in her Mexican border state in 2006 and that Arizona rates Canada its second-largest trading partner with almost $3 billion in trade.
The infamous quote from early in her Homeland Security posting was to fret at Mexico’s hurt feelings. “If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,” she said.
What’s that precisely? Build another Texas wall? Does she have any concept that this 5,013-kilometre land border bisects towns and villages (heck, it even divides the stage from the seats in one Vermont-Quebec movie theatre)?
“The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.”
Having crossed the border last week, let me assure you there’s nothing informal or lacking about it. When friends on an annual golf getaway crossed at the 1,000 Islands, we joined a bunch of others in getting a major passport shakedown by armed American guards casting a very suspicious eyes at our duty-free haul of booze sandwiched between the bags carrying our instruments of fairway destruction.
They called me forward and demanded to know if I’d ever been arrested. Yes, yes, I confessed, there was a minor drug possession charge when I was just 18 (and I still insist it was Bob Green’s pot), but it was wiped clean by a judge. It took a long discussion with border guards about the dangers of allowing in somebody never convicted of anything criminal before my born-in-the-U.S.A. birth certificate got me waved across.
I digress, but my point is that technology which can alert guards to a 34-year-old minor arrest that never resulted in a conviction shouldn’t have much trouble fingering a known terrorist.
The new Homeland Security boss has a well-known Monty Python fetish. Perhaps she’s decided to pattern herself after the black knight of Holy Grail movie fame, who declares “none shall pass,” only to have his arms and legs hacked off in a swordfight even while insisting the amputations are ‘but a scratch’.
If Janet Napolitano adopts a similarly defiant posture to squeeze her northern border into a business barrier, the United States will be cutting off the arms and legs of its integrated manufacturing base to block an enemy that doesn’t exist.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com
Link to the story
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/21/don-martin-napolitano-s-makes-bush-administration-look-well-informed.aspx
www.nationalpost.com
*********************************************************************
Below are two article that appeared in a Canadian Newspaper National Post. See what they say about her. I agree with them.
Tom Brown
North American Freedom
******************************************************************************
National Post editorial board
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009
"U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in January 2009.
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
Just what does that mean, exactly?
Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Story Link
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1520295
*********************************************************************
Don Martin: Napolitano makes Bush administration look well informed
Posted: April 21, 2009, 6:05 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Don Martin
Update: Chris Selley: Making the Bush administration look well-informed
This is borderline insanity.
The most worrisome American official confronting Canada today is a former Arizona governor who thinks the U.S. northern border, which she’s only flown over and never actually crossed on the ground, is a security threat on par with the drug-running, immigrant-smuggling, terrorist-sneaking border wall with Mexico.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is moving unapologetically forward on beefed-up border staffing and enhanced documentation requirements that will make Canadians and travelling Americans yearn for the security paranoia of the George W. Bush administration.
Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.
She actually invoked the bogeyman of 9/11 terrorists sneaking into the United States from Canada to bolster the case for a crackdown, even though the most elementary research would have told her there’s no evidence to support that bogus claim.
When challenged on her concerns, she insisted still-secret data, undoubtedly buried with the aliens at Roswell, justifies her concern. She surely must know that only 12 of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives caught between 1993 and 2001 were illegal immigrants and none of those came from Canada.
And there’s simply no comparison between the illegal entry trickle from Canada and the alien immigrant wave and drug smuggling surge pouring into the U.S. from the south. Of the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. each year, 57% come from Mexico. Just six per cent of those living illegally in the United States are Canadian.
Somebody should also warn the Secretary that recent statistics show 500,000 Canadians spent tourist dollars in her Mexican border state in 2006 and that Arizona rates Canada its second-largest trading partner with almost $3 billion in trade.
The infamous quote from early in her Homeland Security posting was to fret at Mexico’s hurt feelings. “If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,” she said.
What’s that precisely? Build another Texas wall? Does she have any concept that this 5,013-kilometre land border bisects towns and villages (heck, it even divides the stage from the seats in one Vermont-Quebec movie theatre)?
“The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.”
Having crossed the border last week, let me assure you there’s nothing informal or lacking about it. When friends on an annual golf getaway crossed at the 1,000 Islands, we joined a bunch of others in getting a major passport shakedown by armed American guards casting a very suspicious eyes at our duty-free haul of booze sandwiched between the bags carrying our instruments of fairway destruction.
They called me forward and demanded to know if I’d ever been arrested. Yes, yes, I confessed, there was a minor drug possession charge when I was just 18 (and I still insist it was Bob Green’s pot), but it was wiped clean by a judge. It took a long discussion with border guards about the dangers of allowing in somebody never convicted of anything criminal before my born-in-the-U.S.A. birth certificate got me waved across.
I digress, but my point is that technology which can alert guards to a 34-year-old minor arrest that never resulted in a conviction shouldn’t have much trouble fingering a known terrorist.
The new Homeland Security boss has a well-known Monty Python fetish. Perhaps she’s decided to pattern herself after the black knight of Holy Grail movie fame, who declares “none shall pass,” only to have his arms and legs hacked off in a swordfight even while insisting the amputations are ‘but a scratch’.
If Janet Napolitano adopts a similarly defiant posture to squeeze her northern border into a business barrier, the United States will be cutting off the arms and legs of its integrated manufacturing base to block an enemy that doesn’t exist.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com
Link to the story
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/21/don-martin-napolitano-s-makes-bush-administration-look-well-informed.aspx
www.nationalpost.com
*********************************************************************
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thomas More Law Center Files Suit
This story DHS story is on the Thomas More Law Center website. Check it out.
Thanks
Tom
Thanks
Tom
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy
April 16, 200
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”
Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:
- Opposes restrictions on firearms
- Opposes lax immigration
- Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
- Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
- Opposes same-sex marriage
- Has paranoia of foreign regimes
- Fear of Communist regimes
- Opposes one world government
- Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
- Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
- . . . and the list goes on
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
What was DHS thinking?
Hi Everyone,
Today, I am commenting about The DHS Report on right wing extremists. This report is very dangerous to our nation. It states that our own people need to be spied on. . The odd thing about it is that after we ended calling it “a war on terror” We have report going after the right wing citizens in this country. The report warms law enforcement to look out for this people. I do not see left wing groups on this list or anyone from the Presidents party.
From the Report- “It identified as potential terrorist threats people who collect guns, veterans, supporters of border control, and pro-life advocates.” These are Republicans not Democrats.
The question to ask you, is this the kind of Government we want? The paragraph down below is the telling law enforcement what to do if they see a Republican. This passage sounds like East German police state during the cold war.
“DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.”
Ms. Napolitano stands by the report. In my view, Ms. Napolitano should step down. The American people are not going to trust DHS until she does.
Here is the link to the report
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
Let me know me what you think.
Today, I am commenting about The DHS Report on right wing extremists. This report is very dangerous to our nation. It states that our own people need to be spied on. . The odd thing about it is that after we ended calling it “a war on terror” We have report going after the right wing citizens in this country. The report warms law enforcement to look out for this people. I do not see left wing groups on this list or anyone from the Presidents party.
From the Report- “It identified as potential terrorist threats people who collect guns, veterans, supporters of border control, and pro-life advocates.” These are Republicans not Democrats.
The question to ask you, is this the kind of Government we want? The paragraph down below is the telling law enforcement what to do if they see a Republican. This passage sounds like East German police state during the cold war.
“DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.”
Ms. Napolitano stands by the report. In my view, Ms. Napolitano should step down. The American people are not going to trust DHS until she does.
Here is the link to the report
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
Let me know me what you think.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Freedom Alert Story! 4-15-09
This is a interesting blog from motherjones. There is a link with the whole bill in it. Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Tom Brown 4-15-09*****************************************************************************
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet?t=1239779339
Should Obama Control the Internet?
A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
181 Comments | Post Comment
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.
"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."
The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.
"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."
Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
North American Freedom's Top Stories Today
Hi Everyone,
This is April 8th and I am adding 3 more stories from others to the blog. Remember to tell people about this and get your friends thinking. What kind of Government do you want? Obama give me enough things to talk about. He is wrong about the direction he is taking America. Free Markets and Freedom are still alive. Enjoy the information and have a good day.
Tom Brown
Editor Of North American Freedom
************************************************************
North American Freedom Newsletter
Issue 2 Vol 1.
April 8,2009
************************************************************************
Homeland Alert #1
America New Haven , CT.
Click on the link below for the rest of the story
http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/russia_oil_politics/archives/2009/03/the_oil_and_glo_2.htm
****************************************************************************************
Bailout Player Alert #1
USA Inc.
April 7, 2009
online.wsj.com
![[James Lambright (right), bailout deal maker, with ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson in December. ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uF56H3yHy9mSvrJWIqxr4GD3LSrhWqUomy39UYdmeRn2O1eHereXaRbXzutcWRUwoucqIGX7aOuosTXxkRfp6HiZGs5gynNnZucznAHHZlw4tkF8yZaj-hzAwkVq1m-eyraxOLP06r5R-E5zjbEFE=s0-d)
Associated PressAs the government continues to pour cash into the economy, Mr. Lambright, 38 years old, has become one of the most powerful men in American finance. Unknown to most outside the Treasury building, he's an embodiment of how power in the economy has shifted -- for good or ill -- to Washington
Click on the link below for the rest of the story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906145595395075.html
***************************************************************************
Copyright 2009 North American Freedom
This is April 8th and I am adding 3 more stories from others to the blog. Remember to tell people about this and get your friends thinking. What kind of Government do you want? Obama give me enough things to talk about. He is wrong about the direction he is taking America. Free Markets and Freedom are still alive. Enjoy the information and have a good day.
Tom Brown
Editor Of North American Freedom
************************************************************
North American Freedom Newsletter
Issue 2 Vol 1.
April 8,2009
************************************************************************
Homeland Alert #1
HACKETT: Obama lowers our shield
As North Korea launches missiles into orbit
COMMENTARY:
It is surprising that North Korea's testing of President Obama by firing a long-range missile should coincide with word from the administration that it plans to slow the major program defending this country against such threats.
When North Korea launched its missile, dozens of radars and other sensors followed it, confirming that its payload fell into the sea. Either its payload was not a satellite or it was one that failed to reach orbit.
The Oil and Glory Interview: Paul Kennedy
Posted by: Steve LeVine on March 30
www.businessweek.com
Economic historian Paul Kennedy is arguably the West’s most influential scholar on the decline of great powers. When you hear or read someone talking about whether or how America is being eclipsed as the world’s pre-eminent power, you are almost always getting a derivation of Kennedy’s seminal 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.
Two narratives are currently going on. One is the global financial turmoil. The second isClick on the link below for the rest of the story
http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/russia_oil_politics/archives/2009/03/the_oil_and_glo_2.htm
****************************************************************************************
Bailout Player Alert #1
Bailout Man Turns the Screws
By Deborah SolomonUSA Inc.
April 7, 2009
online.wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- Late on New Year's Eve, James Lambright, a Treasury Department official, sat waiting impatiently for documents to arrive from Citigroup Inc. He'd just been told by the bank's chief financial officer that Citigroup couldn't reach some executives who needed to sign the paperwork, including one woman whose husband was in the hospital with a heart attack.
"Well then, you know where to find her," Mr. Lambright replied to the finance chief, Gary Crittenden, according to three accounts of the call. "Put someone in one of your fancy black cars and get her to sign the document."
Associated PressJames Lambright (right), bailout deal maker, with ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson in December.
Click on the link below for the rest of the story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906145595395075.html
***************************************************************************
Copyright 2009 North American Freedom
Monday, April 6, 2009
First Newsletter Issue 1 Vul !
North American Freedom
Issue #1 Vol.1
April 6, 2009
Editorial
Welcome to the first issue of North American Freedom.
This newsletter and blog is set up to teach people and let people know
about the issue you might have missed. We believe in Freedom for all of
North America. We are like the Minutemen from our Revolution from long
ago.*Warning* The State is coming! The State is coming and more laws and
rules passed into law. Tell your friends and let them know what is going
on. The voters need information for 2010. Be that information. We need
leaders who follow the bill of rights and who did not view it as legend on
a map.
The State and Federal Governments of the USA are passing all kinds of
Intolerable Acts. Just like is 1774. What are they thinking? New York State
is really asking for it with all the taxes they trying to pass.All of North
America should be free. Canada and Mexico need to keep Government out of
their noses as well. We are looking for stories about them.
The fight for your mind is at your doorstep. The State wants to control
your life. It is here. The time to defend the ideas of Liberty is now. You
can no longer ignore what is going on.The first step of defending Liberty
is education before you take any action. The second is to meet people who
feel the same and third is to take steps that work. We will do our best to
look for stories that let you make up your own mind. If you want to be
free, you have to be informed. Please let us know what you think.
********************************************************
Freedom Alert #1
The American Spectator
Il Duce, Redux?
By Quin Hillyer
on 4.2.09 @ 6:09AM
Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the
holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial
securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source
of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels….
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/il-duce-redux
*******************************************************
Interesting Ideas #1
Vanishing Republic
More than 200 years ago, Prof. Alexander Tyler mused that:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from
the public treasury.From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…always
followed by a dictatorship.”
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
He wrote this back in 1787 about fall of the Athenian Republic.
Do you find these words ring true today?
******************************************************
Freedom *Red Alert* of the day.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN REPEALED
By Dick Morris
www.dickmorris.com
04.6.2009
On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London. The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.
The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a “framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires.” These standards are to include the extension of “regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets…[including] systemically important hedge funds.”
Note the key word: “all.” If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company “systemically important”, it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be “too big to fail.”
The FSB is also charged with “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”
That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at “all firms.”
The head of the Financial Stability Forum, the precursor to the new FSB, is Mario Draghi, Italy’s central bank president. In a speech on February 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking. He noted that “the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework…would have been unthinkable just months ago.”
He said that “every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision.” He adds that “it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the special duties of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision.”
In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while “I don’t see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time…it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies.”
This “coordination of national agencies” and the “setting” of “standards” is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.
Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the US role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store. Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy. These decisions will be made internationally.
And Europe will dominate them. The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members. The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear. The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote. So will Italy.
The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.
**************************************************************
Copyright 2009
North American Freedom
Issue #1 Vol.1
April 6, 2009
Editorial
Welcome to the first issue of North American Freedom.
This newsletter and blog is set up to teach people and let people know
about the issue you might have missed. We believe in Freedom for all of
North America. We are like the Minutemen from our Revolution from long
ago.*Warning* The State is coming! The State is coming and more laws and
rules passed into law. Tell your friends and let them know what is going
on. The voters need information for 2010. Be that information. We need
leaders who follow the bill of rights and who did not view it as legend on
a map.
The State and Federal Governments of the USA are passing all kinds of
Intolerable Acts. Just like is 1774. What are they thinking? New York State
is really asking for it with all the taxes they trying to pass.All of North
America should be free. Canada and Mexico need to keep Government out of
their noses as well. We are looking for stories about them.
The fight for your mind is at your doorstep. The State wants to control
your life. It is here. The time to defend the ideas of Liberty is now. You
can no longer ignore what is going on.The first step of defending Liberty
is education before you take any action. The second is to meet people who
feel the same and third is to take steps that work. We will do our best to
look for stories that let you make up your own mind. If you want to be
free, you have to be informed. Please let us know what you think.
Enjoy the newsletter and blog.
-Tom Brown Editor of North American Freedom
********************************************************
Freedom Alert #1
The American Spectator
Il Duce, Redux?
By Quin Hillyer
on 4.2.09 @ 6:09AM
Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the
holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial
securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source
of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels….
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/il-duce-redux
*******************************************************
Interesting Ideas #1
Vanishing Republic
More than 200 years ago, Prof. Alexander Tyler mused that:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from
the public treasury.From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…always
followed by a dictatorship.”
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
He wrote this back in 1787 about fall of the Athenian Republic.
Do you find these words ring true today?
******************************************************
Freedom *Red Alert* of the day.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN REPEALED
By Dick Morris
www.dickmorris.com
04.6.2009
On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London. The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.
The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a “framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires.” These standards are to include the extension of “regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets…[including] systemically important hedge funds.”
Note the key word: “all.” If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company “systemically important”, it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be “too big to fail.”
The FSB is also charged with “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”
That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at “all firms.”
The head of the Financial Stability Forum, the precursor to the new FSB, is Mario Draghi, Italy’s central bank president. In a speech on February 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking. He noted that “the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework…would have been unthinkable just months ago.”
He said that “every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision.” He adds that “it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the special duties of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision.”
In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while “I don’t see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time…it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies.”
This “coordination of national agencies” and the “setting” of “standards” is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.
Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the US role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store. Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy. These decisions will be made internationally.
And Europe will dominate them. The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members. The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear. The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote. So will Italy.
The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.
**************************************************************
Copyright 2009
North American Freedom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
