Displaying posts published in

October 2017

Toomey’s ‘Guidance’ Repeal Guide New openings for Congress to scrub Obama-era regulation.

Republicans have made impressive use of the Congressional Review Act, overturning 14 last-minute Obama rules. They might be able to do more now that a government agency has confirmed that Congress can also use the law to repeal diktats the Obama Administration slipped in under the regulatory radar.

One example is the 2013 “guidance” that federal financial regulators issued on leveraged lending. This was another example of Obama officials ducking formal rule-making by claiming they were merely issuing “voluntary” suggestions. The banking industry knew better and chose to cut back on leveraged loans, denying a vital source of capital for indebted companies that lack access to public capital markets, and pushing such activity to nonbank lenders that are even less regulated and make riskier bets.

In light of this migration and uncertainty, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey recently asked the Government Accountability Office to judge whether the guidance counts as a “rule” under the Congressional Review Act. The GAO has now confirmed that it does.

The opening words of the 1996 CRA read: “Before a rule can take effect,” a federal agency must submit a report to Congress. But regulators never did on the leveraged lending guidance. No one has tested the legal limits of the CRA language, but in theory it means the lending guidance is null and void until the Trump Administration submits a report.

As Mr. Toomey notes, even a more limited reading of the law gives Republicans the ability to strike down the lending guidance. The CRA says the clock for Congress’s review of a rule doesn’t begin until a report is submitted. Congress then has 60 legislative days to override with simple majorities in both chambers. Mr. Toomey says the Senate parliamentarian has found that the GAO ruling counts as the official report, and so the clock is now ticking.

Republicans would do well to override the lending guidance on policy grounds. After the financial crisis, regulators subjected banks to new capital and liquidity requirements. They then layered on new restrictions on banking activities, such as leveraged lending. The combination has needlessly driven up costs and curtailed lending.

The Square – A Review By Marilyn Penn

If you like a film-maker’s scolding messages delivered with a sledgehammer instead of pointed arrows, you will appreciate The Square as much as the judges who awarded it the Palme D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Beginning as a satirical jab at the contemporary art world, we see Christian, the curator of a prominent Swedish museum, struggle to interpret his own art-babble to a reporter who quotes it back to him in an interview. We also see the emperor’s clothes current exhibition consisting of piles of gravel – some of which are eventually swept up by the janitor; and we see the soon to open conceptual Square – another pathetic stab at such lofty abstractions as helping humanity and insisting on equality and trust. As the counterpoint to all the empty blather, Christian is confronted on the street by a woman screaming for help and running away from someone off camera who is trying to kill her. At first a bystander, Christian joins another man in trying to protect the woman from the enraged man who comes into focus and is restrained by these two good samaritans. After congratulating themselves for their good deed, Christian walks off and discovers that he has been robbed of his wallet, his phone and his cuff-links.

The film works best when director Ruben Ostlund confines himself to showing Christian’s self-delusions – his forgetting to pick up his two daughters after school, his willingness to drive off without stopping to see what or whom he has obviously run over, his unwillingness to see or help the omnipresent homeless begging on the streets of Stockholm. But Ostlund insists on upping the ante, not trusting his audience to perceive the disconnect between proclaimed lofty values and society’s indifference and lack of historical understanding of what has caused the enormous chasm between the haves and have-nots. Because he restricts himself solely to the sins of our own culture, these remain hackneyed observations which culminate in two shocking and violent scenes Though they make us increasingly uncomfortable, the material is too thin and obvious to succeed as a political allegory of racism, colonialism, the evils of capitalism and all the other shop-worn tropes of what’s wrong with Judaeo-Christian culture.

Elizabeth Moss appears as the reporter who has a one-night stand with the handsome curator and returns to challenge him for being someone who uses women as a way of exercising his power over them. In his defense, Christian challenges her for not admitting that she is , in fact, turned on precisely by that power. Given the prevailing absorption in this subject right now, that thought may be the least cliched observation in the film. If you have the stamina to sit through a two and a half hour film that is well-acted and wryly observed ( a baby and a dog serve as de rigeur accessories in the modern workplace), this movie has something to offer. If you are put off by self-righteous Europeans who find the root of all evil in the sins of our culture alone, you may want to skip the preaching and wallow in the remake of Dynasty instead. It’s much less pretentious.

Weakening the Feminist Cause By Marilyn Penn

http://politicalmavens.com/

Here are some complaints we’ve seen in the press from women who have endured workplace harassment. One woman who worked as a fact checker at The New Republic asserted that editor Leon Wieseltier had “forced her to look at a photograph of a nude sculpture in an art book, asking if she had ever seen a more erotic picture. She wrote that she was shaken and afraid during the incident.” (NYT 10/25) The words “forced” and “afraid” make us wonder how old this person was and whether she had ever been on a subway during rush hour or at a campus fraternity party at any college in the United States. Gretchen Carlson, a Stanford graduate and former Miss America who successfully collected 20 million dollars in a settlement with Fox News over her harassment, recounted the time she got into a car with a public relations man with whom she had just had a meeting. He pushed her head into his crotch after which she immediately fled the car but confesses now that she suffers PTSD because of this incident. Obviously Gretchen didn’t spend much time with veterans during her reign as beauty queen or with battered women who were victims of torture and abuse.

Concomitant with such hyperbole is the magnification of the term “courage” to include women who pour their recovered memories of past harassment into hashtag/metoo. It takes little courage to join a group that offers unqualified approval for anything they say. At the beginning of the feminist movement in the sixties, young women were encouraged to speak out and not be intimidated by boys at school. Single-sex schools bragged that girls did better at science and math when boys were not around but the goal was for women to strengthen their own voices, assert themselves and enter the same careers that men traditionally owned. Although this goal has been enormously successful with more women becoming doctors, lawyers, professors, executives and politicians, the hesitance to defend oneself against improper behavior until years later still lingers. But the tendency to conflate someone’s boorish personality trait with a threatening sexual assault weakens the cause of strong and independent women. Having your boss show you a picture of something you’d rather not see is not a women’s issue – it’s a reality of the hierarchal structure of most workplaces and affects men as well as women. There is always a question of whether the benefits you get from a desirable job outweigh the negative aspects of working with certain people, many of whom have risen to their status by virtue of being aggressive, self-promoting personalities. This doesn’t argue for compliance with unwanted sexual demands; it suggests that there’s a world of difference between looking at a picture in an art book and being threatened physically or economically – for which we have existing prohibitive workplace regulations.

Actresses who endured Harvey Weinstein’s lewd behavior for years were unwilling to jeopardize their opportunities for advancement and success by challenging him in accordance with these regulations. In a profession which has many gay men, this is not solely a women’s issue either nor will regulations ever be able to counteract all aberrant behavior. We live in a society that has been inundated with readily available pornography and extremely heightened sexuality throughout advertising, the media and music and entertainment industries. Ironically, Harvey Weinstein was not one of the shlock-meisters who populate these fields but more accusations will keep coming now that confessionals are both in style and sufficient to ruin reputations. Let’s distinguish between the necessary ability to tolerate compromises in the workplace which often include moral and ethical issues as well as sexual remarks, with unrelenting harassment that cannot be handled without regulatory interference. The current climate of regurgitating grievances from years past re-inforces the image of women too weak to stand up for themselves at the appropriate time – hardly a role model for feminists.

It’s Time for Trump to Kill the Regulatory Swamp Monsters

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/27/its_time_for_trump_to_kill_the_regulatory_swamp_monsters_135384.html President Trump has successfully taken a chainsaw to some of the most onerous, economy-crushing regulations we have seen in modern times, which have disproportionally hurt consumers and small businesses. However, there are still very punitive Obama-era regulations that career bureaucrats at various federal agencies are using to undermine President Trump’s anti-regulation agenda and further […]

A Bipartisan Dossier of Collusion At every turn, Democrats get tangled in their own ‘collusion’ web. By Andrew C. McCarthy

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/453205/print Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research […]

Militias vs. Palestinian “Reconciliation” by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11230/palestinian-militias-gaza The notion that Hamas would ever dismantle its security apparatus and deliver the Gaza Strip to Mahmoud Abbas’s forces is a fantasy. It is estimated that there are about 50 different militias operating in the Gaza Strip. These militias are said to be in possession of about a million pieces of weaponry. If Hamas […]

‘Muhammad’ is the Future of Europe by Giulio Meotti •

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11095/europe-demography-muhammad During the next thirty years, the population of Africa is expected to increase by one billion. The French economist Charles Gave recently predicted that France will have a Muslim majority by 2057 — and this estimate did not even take into consideration the number of expected new migrants. No doubt, Africa’s exploding population will […]

VACATION OCTOBER 27, 28, 29

BACK IN MONDAY OCTOBER 30

Clinton Playbook Being Rolled Out To Protect Hillary Clinton team and media go into overdrive to hide real Russian collusion scandal. Joseph Klein

The Clinton team is ramping up its old war room tricks to deal with what is emerging as its own real Russian collusion scandal. One example is its handling of an embarrassing report by the Washington Post that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), through a lawyer representing both parties, helped bankroll the largely discredited Fusion GPS dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, on alleged Trump-Russian connections. The dossier was reportedly based at least in part on information he collected from Russian officials. After first denying any involvement of the Clinton campaign in funding the GPS dossier project until such denial was no longer tenable, the campaign team tried to spin its involvement as somehow being a patriotic act. When the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, who has not been shy in writing critical stories about Donald Trump, tweeted, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” Hillary supporters denounced her with ad hominem attacks.

Hillary’s former press secretary, Brian Fallon, exclaimed to CNN’s Don Lemon, “It would be malpractice in my view for the campaign to not to want to turn over every rock and learn everything it could about Donald Trump.”

Really? Then why try to hide the campaign’s involvement for so long? Perhaps one explanation is that the Russian lawyer who had offered Donald Trump Jr. damaging information about Hillary Clinton was also involved with the Clinton campaign-funded Fusion GPS. In other words, a Russian lawyer connected with the firm paid in part by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to come up with dirt on Donald Trump could well have been setting a trap for his son in order to expose him to charges of Russian collusion and worse. Through intermediaries, she may have set out to lure Donald Trump Jr. into attending a meeting with her, using the bait of opposition research about Hillary that never materialized.

The real collusion story is Hillary Clinton’s own willingness to benefit Russia for financial gain despite the risk of compromising national security. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as former President Obama’s Secretary of State, the FBI had compiled substantial evidence of money laundering, bribery and other criminal activities by Russians reportedly involved with the Uranium One deal, which Hillary subsequently signed off on even though it placed about 20 percent of the U.S. uranium reserves under Russian control.

“Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews,” the Hill reported.

Hillary Clinton approved the deal along with other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of the leaders of fourteen U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. The only such Obama administration leader reported to have gained financially in connection with the approval of the Uranium One deal was Hillary Clinton. Her family foundation received one hundred forty-five million dollars of donations from investors who benefited from the transfer of Uranium One to Russian control. Bill Clinton received a huge $500,000 speaking fee from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank that promoted the Russian company Rosatom, which had the dual distinction of being the subject of the FBI criminal investigation and of being the firm subsequently approved to assume control over Uranium One.

Congress was kept in the dark regarding the FBI investigation. Prosecution of the case put together by the FBI was placed on hold until years later. The FBI informant who was so instrumental in the case has been kept under wraps until now.

ISRAEL AT 69 (FROM MAY 2017) A WONDERFUL TRIBUTE BY DAVID HARRIS

“The coming into being of a Jewish state in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand, or even three thousand years.” (Winston Churchill)

The establishment of the state in 1948; the fulfillment of its envisioned role as home and haven for Jews from around the world; its wholehearted embrace of democracy and the rule of law; and its impressive scientific, cultural, and economic achievements are accomplishments beyond my wildest imagination.

For centuries, Jews around the world prayed for a return to Zion. We are the lucky ones who have seen those prayers answered. I am grateful to witness this most extraordinary period in Jewish history and Jewish sovereignty ― in the words of Hatikvah, Israel’s national anthem, “to be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

And when one adds the key element, namely, that all this took place not in the Middle West but in the Middle East, where Israel’s neighbors determined from day one to destroy it through any means available to them — from full-scale wars to wars of attrition; from diplomatic isolation to international delegitimation; from primary to secondary to even tertiary economic boycotts; from terrorism to the spread of anti-Semitism, often thinly veiled as anti-Zionism — the story of Israel’s first 69 years becomes all the more remarkable.

No other country has faced such a constant challenge to its very right to exist, even though the age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel is unique in the annals of history.

Indeed, that connection is of a totally different character from the basis on which, say, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the bulk of Latin American countries were established, that is, by Europeans with no legitimate claim to those lands who decimated indigenous populations and proclaimed their own authority. Or, for that matter, North African countries that were conquered and occupied by Arab-Islamic invaders who totally redefined their national character. Or nations like Iraq and Jordan, which were created by Western powers for self-serving reasons.

No other country has faced such overwhelming odds against its very survival, or experienced the same degree of never-ending international demonization by too many nations ready to throw integrity and morality to the wind, and slavishly follow the will of the energy-rich and more numerous Arab states.

Yet Israelis have never succumbed to a fortress mentality, never abandoned their deep yearning for peace with their neighbors or willingness to take unprecedented risks to achieve that peace (as was the case with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, for example, and in the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005), never lost their zest for life, and never flinched from their determination to build a vibrant, democratic state.

This story of nation-building is entirely without precedent.

Here was a people brought to the brink of utter destruction by the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany and its allies. Here was a people shown to be utterly powerless to influence a largely indifferent world to stop, or even slow down, the Final Solution. And here was a people, numbering barely 600,000, living cheek-by-jowl with often hostile Arab neighbors, under unsympathetic British occupation, on a harsh soil with no significant natural resources other than human capital in what was then Mandatory Palestine.

That the blue-and-white flag of an independent Israel could be planted on this land, to which the Jewish people had been intimately linked since the time of Abraham, just three years after the end of the Holocaust — and with the support of a decisive majority of UN members at the time (33 in favor, 13 opposed, with ten abstentions) — truly boggles the mind.

And what’s more, that this tiny community of Jews, including survivors of the Holocaust who had somehow made their way to Mandatory Palestine despite the British blockade and British detention camps in Cyprus, could successfully defend themselves against the onslaught of five Arab standing armies, is almost beyond imagination.

To understand the essence of Israel’s meaning, it is enough to ask how the history of the Jewish people might have been different had there been a Jewish state in 1933, in 1938, or even in 1941. If Israel had controlled its borders and the right of entry instead of Britain, if Israel had had embassies and consulates throughout Europe, how many more Jews might have escaped and found sanctuary?

Instead, Jews had to rely on the goodwill of embassies and consulates of other countries and, with woefully few exceptions, they found there neither the “good” nor the “will” to assist.

I witnessed firsthand what Israeli embassies and consulates meant to Jews drawn by the pull of Zion or the push of hatred. I stood in the courtyard of the Israeli embassy in Moscow and saw thousands of Jews seeking a quick exit from a Soviet Union in the throes of cataclysmic change, fearful that the change might be in the direction of renewed chauvinism and anti-Semitism.

Awestruck, I watched up-close as Israel never faltered, not even for a moment, in transporting Soviet Jews to the Jewish homeland, even as Scud missiles launched from Iraq traumatized the nation in 1991. It says a lot about the conditions they were leaving behind that these Jews continued to board planes for Tel Aviv while missiles were exploding in Israeli population centers. In fact, on two occasions I sat in sealed rooms with Soviet Jewish families who had just arrived in Israel during these missile attacks. Not once did any of them question their decision to establish new lives in the Jewish state. And equally, it says a lot about Israel that, amid all the pressing security concerns, it managed to continue to welcome these new immigrants without missing a beat.

And how can I ever forget the surge of pride — Jewish pride — that completely enveloped me 40 years ago, in July 1976, on hearing the astonishing news of Israel’s daring rescue of the 106 Jewish hostages held by Arab and German terrorists in Entebbe, Uganda, over 2,000 miles from Israel’s borders? The unmistakable message: Jews in danger will never again be alone, without hope, and totally dependent on others for their safety.

Not least, I can still remember, as if it were yesterday, my very first visit to Israel. It was in 1970, and I was not quite 21 years old.

I didn’t know what to expect, but I recall being quite emotional from the moment I boarded the El Al plane to the very first glimpse of the Israeli coastline from the plane’s window. As I disembarked, I surprised myself by wanting to kiss the ground. In the ensuing weeks, I marveled at everything I saw. To me, it was as if every apartment building, factory, school, orange grove, and Egged bus was nothing less than a miracle. A state, a Jewish state, was unfolding before my very eyes.