American Policy Center » 2005 » October
- Eco-Imperialism and the Drive to Destroy the Free Market
- ACTION ALERT: Strike a Blow for Free Enterprise!
- Living Under the Threat of Eminent Domain
- Don't Let Katrina be the Excuse to Blow Away Our Liberty
October 28, 2005
By Tom DeWeese
Max Keiser is a new kind of terrorist. He uses the Internet and boycotts to manipulate stock prices. In that way he forces corporations to comply with his brand of radical environmentalism and Sustainable Development. He puts his hands around corporate throats and squeezes until they comply with his demands. Max Keiser and his ilk hate business and they hate free enterprise and are using these tactics to redistribute wealth and cause chaos in the market place.
Keiser’s operation is called “KarmaBanque.” That new age-focused name alone should give readers an idea of the wacky worldview that spews from Keiser’s brain. But his brand of activism is much more sinister. He calls himself a financial anarchist and he and his partner, Stacy Herbert, consider themselves the “Bonnie and Clyde of the Internet.” In their own words, “KarmaBanque is at the center of a new activist movement which combines the civil disobedience of Gandhi with the financial savvy of George Soros to help change the economic and political landscape of the world!”
Says Keiser’s web page, “Karmabanque describes its audience as ‘Activists, Anarchists, and Hedge Funds.’ It’s a stock exchange of sorts, but with a brilliant and maniacal twist: it trades on the strength of boycotts.” To put it in the simplest possible terms, Keiser targets companies that are vulnerable to boycotts, such as Coca Cola, which relies heavily on daily consumer buying. Once the boycott has begun, Keiser tells his minions to buy options on the targeted company’s stock — options betting that the stock price will go down. As the boycott drags down the company’s stock, Keiser and his followers make a quick buck on the options.
Meanwhile, the company, aware of what has happened to it, tries to strike a deal with Keiser to get the boycott stopped. The deal? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). That is a euphemism for Sustainable Development. In other words, corporations are blackmailed into using its profits to promote the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, for example. Such tactics have been used to stop banks from financing development in Third World countries, because for these poor people to acquire luxuries such as electricity and clean water is, in the minds of Max Keiser and his gang, “unsustainable” and must be stopped.
Watch the television commercials for General Electric and Exxon as they gleefully tell consumers of the virtues of cutting back on energy use and gas consumption. If you have ever thought that such messages seem to go against what these companies should be selling, you are right. They have been twisted into a grotesque characterization of themselves by the Internet Gandhis like Max Keiser. They are smart, mean Zealots to their cause. And their goal is worldwide wealth redistribution, achieved by sucking the lifeblood out of private companies.
And if anyone disagrees with Keiser’s tactics, or advocates a difference of opinion, he attacks. Case in point. A new mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF) (www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com) has been established by two champions of free enterprise, Steve Milloy and Tom Borelli. FEAF has been openly calling on corporations in which it has invested, to ignore the pressures of the radical greens and stick to the business of real growth strategies, not “feel good” social programs. Milloy and Borelli have been courageous in their fight to save the free enterprise system from the gonzo assault of the Max Keisers who are bent on destroying it.
Naturally, the Free Enterprise Action Fund is a threat to Keiser’s plans to make corporations slaves to his radical social agenda. As a result Keiser has attacked FEAF with a vengeance. His web site is filled with attacks on Milloy and Borelli, calling them “brown shirts,” and denounced FEAF as an “appeaser to global warming and climate change terrorists.” On a recent broadcast of his radio program, KarmaBanque Radio, incredibly, Keiser went on a ten minute diatribe against the evils of Milloy and Borelli, simply because they disagree with his world view. Keiser ended by spewing out that Milloy and Borelli were stealing the future from their own children and he went on to say, “I think the kids, the children of these people (Milloy and Borelli) should knife them.”
Considering Keiser’s bravado about being the Bonnie and Clyde of the Internet, one would expect that his own copy of the broadcast would be displayed prominently on his web site, as are several other such diatribes. But after Borelli and Milloy began to fight back, exposing his hate speech, Keiser showed what a true coward he is as the file disappeared. Luckily. Milloy and Borelli made a copy. Readers can hear the actual broadcast at www.junkscience.com/KARMABanque_Podcast_092805.mp3. As a point of reference, Bonnie and Clyde were not heroes or role models. They too hated the free enterprise system and stole from it as they killed people.
Now, Keiser is scheduled to speak at an event in Frankfurt, Germany, called the Triple Bottom Line Investing Conference. This is not a conference that most would want to attend. It is a gathering of radicals who advocate Corporate Social Responsibility. Like Keiser, those who will attend are part of the movement which demands that businesses toe their strict anti-business line. Once a business complies, the demands become even more radical – the bar continually raised. That’s what this conference is all about. It’s the Who’s Who of radical, anti-free market investing.
A main sponsor of the conference is the Calvert Fund. They are basically paying the conference bills. Calvert is a $10 billion investment company for the Corporate Social Responsibility Crowd. They too engage in shareholder activism to get companies to adopt their social agenda. Calvert, in spite of its radical agenda, tries to pass itself off as responsible and civilized. So all of corporate America should be asking Calvert why they are paying to bring a terrorist who spews hate speech and advocates violence to their conference. Does Keiser really represent Calvert’s true colors?
These few words have only cracked the surface of the outrageous assault that is being perpetrated on what was once a free market. To allow those like Keiser to continue, unexposed, can only lead to financial chaos, destroyed markets, lost jobs, lost dreams, reduced standards of living and starving people. Of course, as is always the case of those who advocate Sustainable Development, they will tell us all of that misery is necessary for the public good.
October 26, 2005
Action Alert! Action Alert!
| APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click http://www.referralblast.com/rblast.asp?sid=7137 to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy, and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING LEFTIST POLICIES! |
Max Keiser is a new kind of terrorist. He uses the Internet and boycotts to manipulate stock prices. In that way, he forces corporations to comply with his brand of radical environmentalism and Sustainable Development. He puts his hands around corporate throats and squeezes. Max Keiser and his ilk hate business and they hate free enterprise and are using these tactics to redistribute wealth and cause chaos in the market place.
And if anyone disagrees with Keiser’s tactics, or advocates a difference of opinion to his policies, he attacks – viciously.
Case in point. A new mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF) www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com has been started by two champions of free enterprise, Steve Milloy and Tom Borelli. FEAF has been openly calling on corporations in which it has invested, to ignore the pressures of the radical greens and stick to the business of real growth strategies, not “feel good” social programs.
Of course, the Free Enterprise Action Fund is a threat to Max Keiser’s plans to make corporations slaves to his radical social agenda. And so he has attacked FEAF with a vengeance.
On his radio show, “Karmabanque Radio,” Keiser went on a diatribe against Milloy and Borelli, calling them “brown shirts” and denounced FEAF as an “appeaser to global warming and climate change terrorists.” Incredibly, Keiser then went on to say, ” I think the kids, the children of these people (Milloy and Borelli) should knife them.” You can hear the actual broadcast: http://www.junkscience.com/KARMABanque_Podcast_092805.mp3.
Keiser and his partner, Stacy Herbert, like to call themselves the Bonnie and Clyde of the Internet. Apparently, Keiser takes that role seriously. Bonnie and Clyde were not heroes or role models. They too hated the free market system and stole from it and killed people.
Here’s your chance to stick a blow for Free Enterprise. Let me explain.
Keiser is scheduled to speak at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, November 2ond, called the Triple Bottom Line Investing (TBLI) Conference. This conference is not one that you would want to attend. It is a gathering of radicals who advocate “Corporate Social Responsibility.” That is a euphemism for Sustainable Development. They demand that businesses toe their radical line. Once a business complies, the demands become even more radical – the bar continually raised. That’s what this conference is all about. It’s the “Who’s Who” of radical-left investing.
A main sponsor of the conference is the Calvert Fund. They are basically paying the bills. Calvert is a $10 billion investment company for the Corporate Social Responsibility crowd. They engage in shareholder activism to get companies to adopt their social agenda. Calvert is a major player and can not afford to sponsor a conference which features a speaker who advocates violence.
We can get Calvert to cancel Keiser’s appearance at the TBLI conference and thereby damage his reputation and influence in the radical movement. But you must act now. We have only a few days.
Action To Take
Call the President of Calvert Investments and demand she remove Max Keiser from the program at the TBLI conference.
Her name is Barbara Krumsiek.
Phone: 301-951-4800
E-mail: Barbara.krumsiek@calvert.com
We must make the calls and send the e-mails to create a firestorm of protest. The more pressure she receives, the more likely she will take action to remove Keiser from the program.
This is a chance to strike a blow for free enterprise and take a whack of the sledgehammer at a real enemy of freedom.
MAKE THE CALLS TODAY AND BE SURE TO SEND THIS ACTION ALERT TO AT LEAST 5 MORE PEOPLE.
October 13, 2005
The nation remains outraged over the Supreme Court’s Kelo Vs New London, CT decision, which ruled that local governments can evict homeowners and demolish their homes to make way for wealthy, politically connected developers who promise to use the property to funnel money into government coffers under the excuse of community development. Polls show that 89% of citizens in Connecticut (where the Kelo case was born) fear the use of Eminent Domain and want it stopped. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has called the decision by her colleagues “pretty scary
In response to the ruling, the U.S. Congress is moving to enact legislation to restore the property rights protections in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Meanwhile, more than 30 states have proposed or passed to counter the Kelo decision in order to guarantee property rights. .” Yet, the United States Conference of Mayors, in an official statement said, “We hope that Congress will not limit this important tool (for economic development).”
While most Americans are aware of the dangers of Kelo, few have heard the first hand story of those homeowners who continue to be harassed and threatened by the New London, CT government.
Recently, Shu Bartholomew, host of the weekly radio program, “On the Commons,” which is dedicated to exposing the tyranny of Home Owners Associations, interviewed two of the main homeowners involved in the Kelo case, Michael Cristofaro and Susette Kelo. I am herein providing her report on the shocking details of how some of our American neighbors have had to suffer at the hands of out of control government, now legalized by the Supreme Court of the land.
All Americans must fully understand the impact of the Supreme Court Kelo ruling and that now, there is no private property in the United States and no home is safe from the threat of bulldozers. Above all, Americans must understand what it means to live under the threat of Eminent Domain.
Tom DeWeese
The Real Story of the Kelo Property Grabs
By Shu Bartholemew
“….nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
With those twelve words tacked on at the end of the 5th Amendment, the Founders of this country sought to protect private property from an unjust taking by the government.
To be sure, the U.S. Supreme court decision in the recent Kelo v. New London case, has shocked and outraged Americans. But so far public discussion has focused on whether the takings clause allows condemning private property for the financial gain of another private entity. While this interpretation is cause for alarm and deserves public scrutiny, it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the power to condemn private property is used – and abused – by those elected to serve us.
You see, long before the rest of the country heard of this idyllic small New England town, some of the residents were getting their first taste of the powers of eminent domain.
After plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull area were approved by the City of New London in 1999, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a quasi-public entity empowered by the city to use the sovereign power of eminent domain, started acquiring private property, including a neighborhood of approximately 80 older homes.
In a recent interview on my radio show with two of the remaining homeowners, Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro, I got a tiny glimpse of what the last 5 years have been like. Here is what they told me about their nightmare.
In the beginning representatives from the NLDC showed up on their doorsteps with contracts in hand, ready to be signed. The homeowners were told to accept the money they were offered as their homes had been condemned and they would end up with nothing. Most of the homeowners, many of them in their 80’s and 90’s, fearful of being left not only homeless but penniless as well, signed the contracts and vacated their homes. They moved out of their neighborhood, and home, for the first time ever.
The homeowners who did not surrender their homes immediately were threatened, intimidated and harassed. Agents representing the City of New London called on the phone and banged on their doors at all hours of the day and night, insisting that they sign the contracts. Bulldozers mowed down the homes as soon as the NLDC took possession of them, burying personal objects and mementoes in the rubble they created. They left no physical traces of the generations of families that once inhabited the area. The same bulldozers were then parked in front of the remaining homes, as a menacing reminder of the threat that still hung over them, promising them that their turn would come. When that tactic failed to produce the desired results, roads were blocked, denying the residents access to their homes.
It is hard to imagine that the Founders of this country envisioned the citizens they worked hard to protect would end up being treated by public servants in this manner. It is equally hard to believe that, in the unfortunate event that private property would have to be used for a “public use”, that the owners would not be made as whole as possible.
But the provision for “just compensation” has, if possible, been even more abused than the condemnation itself.
One condemned property was valued at $60,000 (Cristofaro’s) by the assessors hired by the city. This is the same city, which, in 2000, assessed the property at $215,000 for tax purposes. The rationale being that as the property is under threat of condemnation, it has no value. ” It is important to note that Christofaro actually offered to give the city his house n return for one of the yet to be built condos. However, city officials told him that would be impossible because they didn’t yet know how much the new condos would be worth. The elderly whose family homes were taken from them in the name of “progress” were left not only homeless, but penniless, as well. There is nothing “just” about a system that sanctions stealing private property.
And, to add insult to injury, the city now is demanding rent of $600 a month, going back 5 years. So much for the mandate for “just compensation”.
But I saved the best for last. In the case of New London and their plans for rebuilding the city, there are no plans for the land 11 houses sit on. The NLDC does not need the 11 remaining houses in Fort Trumbull to proceed with the approved plans to redevelop the area. They fought the homeowners, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, not because the houses were in their way but because, as has been reported in the past, the new residents of the now more upscale neighborhood, “do not want to look at these properties.
On the plus side, if the City of New London, through their henchmen at the NLDC succeed in demolishing the existing houses and replacing them with newer, pricier housing, chances are these new, self sustained neighborhoods will come with a homeowners association. So the next time New London decides to embark on some neighborhood cleansing program, they can be assured that the associations, using contract law as their authority, will rid the city of the “undesirable” citizens. And the city leaders can face their constituents with clean hands and, if their acting skills are sharp enough, some feigned empathy.
Shu Bartholomew is the host of “On the Commons,” a weekly radio program based in Fairfax, Virginia, dedicated to exposing the threat of Home Owners’ Associations, and the loss of private property rights they impose. Web site: www.onthecommons.com
October 5, 2005
By Tom DeWeese
In typical fashion the federal government is using a real disaster to scare us into giving it more power in case an unrelated, perhaps man-made (terrorist-related), disaster might possibly occur. President Bush has announced that he wants to federalize emergency responses. When does it stop?
Katrina was the worst natural disaster to ever hit the United States. As a result, all levels of government were caught off guard. Some elected officials were most certainly inept at dealing with the situation. People suffered as a result. So, accept it for what it was. Katrina was a once in a life time experience. Now, clean up the mess and move on.
But no, according to President Bush, Katrina showed us what would happen if there was a terrorist attack in a large population center. What if we had to move whole populations in case of some toxic or nuclear attack? There’s only one answer, according to the Bush Administration. We must prepare by putting the military in charge. There’s that excuse again. Terrorism. Oh, please!
What President Bush is really telling us is that, in our next disaster, he wants to immediately declare Martial Law. How far is he willing to go to enforce it? First, he wants the Pentagon to serve as the nerve center where the response is organized. What are locally elected officials to do while the military prepares for war on their city? Are they to be involved? After all, local officials know the territory best. They know the people and their needs. Moreover, the military is trained to blow things up — not gently deal with citizens.
The first the thing the military was assigned to do in New Orleans was to get rid of all of the people. They pulled people from their homes, even though they didn’t want to leave. Some of those people wanted to stay to protect their possessions from looters. Some of those possessions, in that historic city, date back to before the Civil War. Anyone can understand that citizens who have had such property in their family for generations would want to stay and protect it. Others, the very poorest, wanted to stay because that land was all they had in the world. Regardless of the dangers, they wanted to stay. It was their choice. It was their land. It was their life. Local leaders would understand this. Soldiers following orders would not. Today, in our cocoon-of-safety mentality, such considerations aren’t acceptable.
So, under the proposed Martial law, will the President be able to suspend Habeas Corpus? That means that the rule of law is thrown out the window. It means there is no due process. No fair trials. No bail. That would be a valuable tool to the military in dealing with those bothersome holdouts who were just trying to protect their property. They would just be swooped off the streets and out of their houses and locked away until someone in power decided to let them out.
But, some would argue, the news media wouldn’t allow such abuses. With all of our twenty four hour cable news breathing down the necks of politicians, rights and security would certainly be safeguarded. The military would just be an efficient tool to help. It’s an emergency!!
Really? Under Martial law, the president has the power to suppress the media. Let an article or editorial or Geraldo Revere say a discouraging word about the government’s actions, and they can be shut down and jailed for interfering with the emergency effort. And remember, with the suspension of Habeas Corpus, they wouldn’t even get a trial. Soldiers with guns and orders to enforce would be the rule of the day.
So how far is the President willing to go in using the military as the central force in dealing with disasters? His words: “it may require a change of law.” What law needs to be changed to give him the power to put the military in charge of undefined disasters? Posse Comitatus, of course. The 1878 law that says the military must never be in charge of civilian law-enforcement activities.
There are specific reasons why wise lawmakers of the past forbade such activity. They feared the creation of a totalitarian state. Using military force that was created to bring mass destruction on our nation’s enemies was considered extreme overkill and dangerous to the civil liberties of the citizens of this nation. The history of that justifiable concern can be traced back directly to George Washington when he surrendered his military power to the civilian government after the Revolution. Washington knew it had to be done to prevent the creation of a military dictatorship.
The great statesman, John C. Calhoun said, in 1831, “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of the majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force must ultimately prevail.”
If George Bush gets his way and the laws are changed to allow the military to take control over the locally elected representatives of the people, then John C. Calhoun will finally get his answer. The United States of America will be a consolidated, absolute power resting on the unrestrained will of those in charge, with the use of force as the ultimate solution. And there will be no way to turn back. The power structure of the nation will have been changed.
President Bush is as wrong and misguided in this scheme as the Supreme Court was in it’s decision in the Kelo case to give local governments the power to take any home in order to pad the pockets of their cronies. The federal government is truly upside down in its view of how liberty is sustained. Certainly there needs to be cooperation between local officials and federal aid. But when it comes to putting the army in charge of disasters, let it be the Salvation Army, not the Pentagon.
