NAFTA suit alleges Ontario gov't cronyism in wind power contracts

For Pickens, Wind Claim May Be Last Power Play - The New York Times - Alexandra Stevenson:

October 15, 2015 - "T. Boone Pickens made billions drilling for oil and gas and squaring off in bare-knuckled corporate takeover bouts. Now the 87-year-old tycoon ... is using his rights under the North American Free Trade Agreement to bring claims against the Canadian province of Ontario.... He is seeking $700 million in damages for future losses related to bids that his wind power company, Mesa Power, lost in wind power auctions in Ontario.

"Mr. Pickens and Mesa Power contend that [a] Florida company, NextEra, was granted exclusive access through private meetings with important government officials that ultimately tilted the bidding in its favor.

"The province of Ontario granted NextEra $3.8 billion in energy contracts. Mesa Power contends that $18,600 in donations that NextEra made to the ruling Liberal Party in Ontario before elections in 2011 had undue influence on the auction.

"NextEra did not respond to a request for comment....

"When Ontario enacted a Green Energy Act in 2009, ... the government created a program to provide incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy projects. Companies that were awarded contracts would be paid premium guaranteed prices set by the government.... Cole Robertson, who was vice president of finance for Mesa Power at the time, not[ed] that the government’s set price in 2011 was double that in Texas at [that] time.

"Mesa Power submitted several project proposals through the program. But when the first rankings came out in late 2010, its executives disputed the assessments, arguing that Mesa Power’s projects should have been higher.... Ontario government officials have countered that Mesa Power did not submit its applications properly....

"Mesa Power later disputed an auction in the spring of 2011, complaining of a lack of transparency around the process of awarding contracts and insufficient time for public consultation. Mesa Power executives wrote to Shawn Cronkwright, an official with the power authority, seeking clarification and meetings with the agency and the Ministry of Energy. Mr. Cronkwright told Mesa Power executives that these meetings would not be possible because the agency had yet to award contracts, according to court documents....

"A review of documents and emails between NextEra executives, lobbyists and government officials show that NextEra met and held calls with high-level officials at the Ontario Ministry of Energy, the premier’s office and the power authority, even as Mesa Power executives were told they could not speak to officials until contracts were awarded. When NextEra lobbyists requested more information, officials sometimes responded within hours.

"Mr. Pickens’s lawyers argue that NextEra was able to wield influence because of its chief lobbyist, Bob Lopinski at Counsel Public Affairs. A former adviser to the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, Mr. Lopinski was hired in 2010. He contacted former colleagues in the premier’s office to set up meetings for senior NextEra executives including Mitch Davidson, the chief executive. He also arranged for meetings at the Ministry of Energy and the power authority....

"For NextEra, whose operations include electricity plants in Hawaii and wind farms in North Dakota, such political contributions are not unusual. In the United States, the company has spent millions of dollars in political donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

"'You can’t win an election in Florida without the support of NextEra,' said William Pentland, managing partner at Brookside Strategies, an energy consulting firm."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/business/dealbook/for-pickens-wind-claim-may-be-last-power-play.html?_r=0 'via Blog this'

Paul and Cruz have best tax plans, says Laffer

The Paul And Cruz Flat Tax Plans Are Best Tax Proposals - Investors.com - Arthur B. Laffer & Stephen Moore:

November 20, 2015 - "The good news on the presidential campaign trail is that almost all Republicans are now for serious pro-growth tax reform and simplification. Every candidate wants lower rates (some a one-rate flat tax), fewer loopholes and carve-outs, and a reduced role for an abusive IRS....

"All the GOP tax plans look good to us — though some are admittedly better than others. The danger now is that too many conservatives have formed a circular firing squad and are shooting down nearly all proposals on purity grounds or attacking trivial differences.

"This is the surest way to derail tax reform altogether....

"Which brings us to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.... Paul's rates are 14.5% on business net sales and wages and salaries. Cruz has a 16% business net sales tax and a 10% wage and salary tax. These would be the lowest tax rates since the income tax was devised 100 years ago. Both are estimated by the Tax Foundation to grow the economy by a gigantic $2 trillion in extra GDP per year after 10 years.

"Both eliminate almost all deductions and special-interest carve-outs.... They completely kill the corporate tax, the estate tax and the FICA payroll tax.

"Yet conservatives are strangely griping. Economists at the Cato Institute have joined with Larry Kudlow to complain that the business tax is a value-added tax (VAT). Such a dreaded tax, they fear, would be a giant new source of revenue and lead to government gone wild, as has happened in Europe....

"But nearly all leading flat-tax plans have some form of VAT to replace the god-awful corporate income tax.... When we designed our Complete Flat Tax in our book Return to Prosperity, we came up with this business tax system with no deductions, simple as can be, and the lowest rate just about anywhere in the world....

"Almost every economist will agree that the right way to tax businesses is on their income minus their allowable expenses.

"The crux of the complaint here is that the Paul and Cruz tax plans are too efficient and too pro-growth and thus raise too much revenue.....

"The sole reason we need taxes is to raise the requisite revenues to fund government.... Criticizing the Cruz and Paul VATs based on worries about providing too much revenue to government is like arguing against cutting the capital gains tax rate — because every time we cut that rate, the feds get more revenue."

Read more: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/112015-781892-paul-and-cruz-flat-tax-proposals-best-candidate-tax-plans.htm
'via Blog this'

Illinois Libertarians challenge ban on donations from medical marijuana companies

Illinois Libertarians Sue Over Medical Marijuana Campaign Finance Ban | WUIS 91.9 - Brian Mackey:

November 25, 2015 - "A federal lawsuit is seeking to overturn Illinois’ ban on campaign contributions from medical marijuana companies.

"The case was brought last week by two Libertarian Party political candidates: Claire Ball of Addison, who says she's running for comptroller, and Scott Schluter of Marion, who says he's running for state representative. They say they favor legalization of drugs, and that companies that agree with them should be able to support their campaigns.

"When Illinois legislators approved the medical marijuana pilot program in 2013, they boasted of passing the strictest medical marijuana law in the country. Rep. Lou Lang, a Democrat from Skokie, was a lead sponsor of the bill. He says the contribution ban, which applies to cannabis growers and dispensaries, was among a number of provisions meant to appease 'conservative' and 'hesitant' colleagues....

"'I would prefer this not be in the bill,' Lang said in a telephone interview. 'Not because I’m looking for campaign donations from people in the marijuana industry, but because I’m not sure that it’s great public policy to pick out one particular industry or two particular industries, and single them out for a clouding of their free speech rights, and not do it to all (industries)'....

"The specificity of the Illinois law piqued the interest of Benjamin Barr, a lawyer with the Pillar of Law Institute in Washington, D.C. He’s one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ball and Schluter.

"'It’s strikingly bizarre to me for the state of Illinois to take this blatant and open of a position,' Barr said in a telephone interview. 'Usually, campaign finance (prohibition), when it has problems, applies heavy-handedly to one group. But they’re not named out in the law, because that’s just jumping up and down and signaling, "Look, we’re going after this particular organization or this set of speakers."'

"Barr says he’s not aware of a similar ban in any of the other roughly two-dozen states experimenting with medical marijuana....

"The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that spending on campaigns is essentially political speech, and thus protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

"Barr says it’s particularly important that his clients, who favor the legalization of drugs, be able to seek support from like-minded businesses: 'They're third parties. They have new ideas. They're disrupting the status quo. And what's most important to them right now? To be able to associate and to be able to get funding, so that they're able to speak to people in Illinois, and they're able to share their message.'"

Read more: http://wuis.org/post/illinois-libertarians-sue-over-medical-marijuana-campaign-finance-ban#stream/0
'via Blog this'

Folk-rocker Frank Turner says, "I’m a libertarian"

Frank Turner: ‘I’m a libertarian. That doesn’t go down well in the music industry’ - Music - Hampstead Highgate Express - Charlotte Beale :

November 26, 2015 - "Frank Turner is back home in Holloway, for a brief stint, between three months on the road across the US, Europe and the UK.... Turner’s respite in Holloway is short-lived, however; after returning to his regular haunt at Alexandra Palace tonight, he and his band The Sleeping Souls will set off to the US and Mexico for more tour dates, finally wrapping up in December. It will mark the end of yet another hugely successful year for the former Million Dead frontman, who, since releasing his first solo record, Sleep is for the Week in 2007, has become one of the biggest folk rock stars in the UK.

"The singer’s latest album, Positive Songs for Negative People, which reached No. 2 in the UK charts in August, opens with a song called The Angel Islington, which mourns a separation. 'I’ve broken all the things that I could break', Turner sings.

"Does he agree that Islington is being broken – 'socially cleansed', as his MP Jeremy Corbyn claims – by the combination of Tory housing benefit cuts and exorbitant property prices?

"'I think "social cleansing" is taking it a little too far, myself. Obviously there are concerns about the disadvantaged, but Holloway is a resolutely mixed area in my experience, and I don’t see much sign of that changing myself.”

"Turner, 33, won’t be drawn further on his MP’s new leadership of the Opposition. 'For personal reasons, I try to maintain a distance between my art and my politics, partly because I operate within a left-wing milieu and I’m a libertarian. 'Being pro-market, libertarian, extreme liberal - however you want to put it - doesn’t go down particularly well in the music industry.

"'It’s a moral conundrum for me, because part of me wants to stand up for what I believe in, but at the same time I’m much more interested in making music and in sound and art and song-writing, than I am in spending my entire life arguing with people on Twitter and Facebook about politics.'"

Read more: http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/etcetera/music/frank_turner_i_m_a_libertarian_that_doesn_t_go_down_well_in_the_music_industry_1_4326304
'via Blog this'

Palin calls legalizing marijuana "no big deal"

Sarah Palin: Legalizing Weed Is 'No Big Deal' - Marina Fang, Huffington Post:

November 19, 2015 - "Supporters of marijuana legalization may have an unlikely ally: Sarah Palin.

"Breaking with many members of her party who oppose legalizing marijuana, the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee on Thursday said it is 'no big deal' and argued that it should not be a controversial issue.

";I look on the national scene and think, wow, of all things to be fighting over and battling over, especially when it comes to medical marijuana. I think, hmm, this is just not my baby,' Palin told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

"When Hewitt expressed disbelief that Palin's home state legalized recreational marijuana last year, she said the vote 'didn't surprise me.'

"'We've got that libertarian streak in us,' she said, explaining that Alaska, the most conservative state to legalize marijuana so far, already had lax marijuana laws, so it was a less divisive issue than in other states.

"'"I grew up in Alaska when pot was legal anyway. It was absolutely no big deal'....

"Though she did not explicitly say that she supports legalizing marijuana, she has come out in support of decriminalizing it. In 2010, she told Fox News that marijuana is a 'minimal problem.'

"'If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society,' she said."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-palin-marijuana-legalization_564e4f29e4b0d4093a570fce
'via Blog this'

Arm citizens to stop terrorism, Interpol SG suggests

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry' - ABC News - Josh Margolin:

October 23, 2013 - "Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

"In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called 'soft targets' are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

"'Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem,' Noble said. 'One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security....  How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters.....

"In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

"'Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?' Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. 'What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, "Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?" This is something that has to be discussed.'"

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
'via Blog this'

... but Democrats want to disarm more Americans

Sorry Democrats, But There Is No ‘Loophole’ That Allows Terrorists To Legally Buy Guns -Sean Davis, The Federalist:

November 23, 2015 - "Having overwhelmingly lost the public debate about whether the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee screening policy should be enhanced, Democrats have retreated to more comfortable rhetorical ground: demanding more gun control.

"Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing 'dangerous terrorists' from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

"The new bill, which Democrats have dubbed the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, ... would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list.... If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

"It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names, the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed.

"Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

"Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence – evidence which will almost certainly be redacted....

"There may actually be an even bigger reason to reject [the bill]: it is completely unnecessary, because the U.S. attorney general already has the power to prevent 'dangerous terrorists' from legally buying guns, and that power can be exercised without unconstitutional deprivation of due process.... All the attorney general has to do to prevent 'dangerous terrorists' from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them....

"Engaging in terrorism is a federal crime. Providing material support for terrorism is a federal crime. Preparing to engage in terrorism is a federal crime. If there is sufficient evidence to show that these individuals are engaged in terrorism, the best way to make America safer is to indict these terrorists and arrest them."

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/
'via Blog this'