Hillary's Economic Plan

Okay, stop the complaints about Democratic presidential candidates who won't face up to the financial crisis bearing down the country. Hillary Clinton stood up and shook her finger at it, kind of like her husband does. Her response seems a little goofy and maybe a sign the boys in her "war room" are losing their grip. On the other hand, what she said is exactly what you would expect her to say.

Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania Monday [AP story by Charles Babington] Senator Clinton proposed the government provide mortgage companies with protection against lawsuits by other investors. Say what? Isn't that the old Republican chestnut called "tort reform?" Shouldn't she have saved this nugget until after she wins the nomination and starts moving to the right for the fall campaign?

Her logic is strictly from financial. "Many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they are afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers," Clinton explained. Good thought. Maybe she could send along a few security guards. I hear mortgage lenders are afraid of being tarred and feathered by those families who were conned into buying the sure-to-fail mortgages.

It gets better. Senator Clinton further proposes (actually urges our defunct President to appoint) "an emergency working group on foreclosures" to come up with some answers She doesn't exactly call this a "blue-ribbon commission" but that's the idea. Clinton nominates for this prestigious group her own financial patron and economics guru Robert Rubin of Citigroup and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, also the former-former Fed chairman Paul Volcker.

Volcker is long retired and might be available, but Rubin is standing deep in the muck and debris at Citigroup, bailing furiously so it doesn't go the way of Bear Stearns. Greenspan was traveling abroad the other day when the New York Times tried to ask him to explain why he failed to prevent the Wall Street meltdown by regulating these financial high fliers before it was too late. Come to think of it, why didn't the New York Times ask that question when Greenspan was still chairman? .
Read More...

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

"Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Obama Attended Hate America Sermon

The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22.

The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.
"READ MORE"