John O’Sullivan Conduct Unbecoming

Liberation has wrought two problems. The lesser, as chivalry has died, is sexual harassment by those with power over someone they desire. The greater problem as the old restraints atrophy is that we don’t live in a world without rules but in one where they are unknown until broken.

It took less than two weeks before the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal and its impact on cultural politics spread from Hollywood and Broadway to the Westminster Parliament in London. “Sexminster” and “Kneegate” are the names of the scandal locally. It’s being treated by the media as an outbreak of sexual harassment among MPs so shocking that it may bring down Theresa May’s Tory government.

Yet one can’t help noticing that so far the total of all reported “offenses”—which range widely from one rape to two reports of Ministers touching knees surreptitiously over dinner—is only a small fraction of the rapes and serious assaults alleged against Weinstein alone. Whatever pretensions the House of Commons may still cherish, it’s very far from being Hollywood-on-the-Thames.

News and rumors of sex emerge with every twist of the 24-hour cycle, however. So, with that qualification, here is a quick summary of recent news from Babylon:

A dossier prepared by anonymous “researchers” alleged that forty Tory MPs were known to be guilty of sexual harassment of young aides and researchers. Some MPs and their harassed aides on the list, however, promptly stood up to identify themselves and to firmly deny the charges. Two of the MPs are taking actions for libel. The number of Tory MPs in the dossier has now been reduced to 25.
Though not mentioned in the dossier, a number of Labour figures were soon led into the dock. One MP was charged with aggressively vulgar sexual advances in a bar a decade ago; another with hinting broadly to a young Labour sympathizer that he nursed feelings that made her feel “uncomfortable” (he envied the young man who was her lover); and the third case, mentioned above, was that of a Labour apparatchik outside Parliament accused of rape by another young activist.
As the tumbrils began to roll, more names were outed. One former Tory Minister, married and once mentioned as a possible PM, was found to have sexted to a young woman after interviewing her for a job. (He decided not to offer her the job but risked texting her anyway.) Another Tory MP has been accused of putting his hands up the skirts of women MPs in the elevator—the only accusation so far that mimics the odd Hollywood stories of producers, writers, and actors masturbating in front of women they were hiring or working with. A third Tory, Charlie Elphicke, has in effect been expelled from the Tory benches by the Whips’ Office which also passed allegations involving him onto the police. He has not been told what the allegations are, however, and the police have not yet taken any action against him.

Draining the Swamp at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Skirmish over acting directors foreshadows a battle ahead. Joseph Klein

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has become ground zero in President Trump’s fight to “drain the swamp” permeating the deep state in Washington, D.C. This bureau was created during the Obama administration under the draconian Dodd-Frank Act, with the purpose of regulating various financial products directly affecting consumers, such as mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans. Barack Obama’s pick to run the agency as its director was Richard Cordray, who used the unilateral powers of his office to browbeat financial institutions, large and small. Mr. Cordray resigned late last week. A duel broke out between two claimants for the position of “acting director” to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Cordray until President Trump nominates, and the Senate confirms, his successor as director. Mr. Cordray tried, just before his resignation, to install his own pick for acting director, while President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney, someone he trusts to jump start immediately the changes he believes are necessary to place some reasonable constraints on the run-away, unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy. For the moment, a federal court has supported the authority of the Trump administration’s appointment, but the opposition is considering various options, including an appeal. While it’s doubtful an appeal will succeed, it doesn’t look like the Deep State is ready to concede this battle just yet.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was originally the idea of then-Professor and now-Senator Elizabeth Warren, who regularly attacks anything connected to the financial industry. To ostensibly protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from any political interference, Congress granted the bureau’s director extraordinary unilateral powers. It also decided to delegate to the Federal Reserve Congress’s constitutional authority to appropriate the funds to run the bureau.

Before resigning his post a week earlier than planned, Director Cordray sought to extend his bureau’s overbearing regulatory regime for as long as possible by handpicking his own “acting director” to replace him temporarily. He did this through the artifice of appointing a deputy director, Leandra English, just before his resignation took effect. He based his action on ambiguous language in the Dodd-Frank Act, which he claimed empowered his just-appointed deputy director to automatically take over as the “acting director” upon his departure.

President Trump promptly used his authority, as the head of the executive branch, under a provision of a separate statute dealing with the filling of temporary vacancies, to appoint his own acting director, Mick Mulvaney (who is also serving as the budget director). The president served notice that he would not allow the swamp to continue as is at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Pelosi Pleads “Icon” Defense for Conyers’ Sexcapades A sleeping giantess has been awakened. Matthew Vadum

Nancy Pelosi’s head-spinning defense of her Democrat colleague, the credibly accused serial sexual predator John Conyers Jr., is throwing a spotlight on the appalling double-standard Democrats apply when their own are under fire.

Of course, it is axiomatic that the more important the politician being accused of sexual wrongdoing is to the left, the more creatively and vigorously left-wingers will defend him.

But in this new era of populism, Americans are demanding accountability for the powerful. Public revulsion over sex-related abuses is mowing down the powerful like blades of grass. Hollywood’s answer to Caligula, Democrat mega-donor Harvey Weinstein, was the first to fall, and new stories of rape and his otherwise farm animal-like behavior seem to come out hourly. It takes a lot for the money-hungry left-wingers at HBO to cancel a blockbuster series like “House of Cards,” but that’s exactly what they did after actor Kevin Spacey was credibly accused of trying to force himself on an underage boy years ago. The political career of that crazed frat-boy who can’t keep his hands to himself, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), is now hanging on by a thread as the trickle of loyal Democrats abandoning him is growing into a raging river.

Republicans and conservatives are no angels but hardly any have gotten caught up in this great awakening that began in the autumn. This helps to explain why mainstream media shrieking about unproven sexual misconduct allegations against President Trump and Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama keeps growing louder.

Pelosi has put some distance between herself and the Michigan lawmaker since her Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press,” which was an unadulterated public relations debacle for the California congresswoman who serves as House minority leader. But her stunningly tone-deaf TV performance shows the normal rules still don’t apply to Democrat dinosaurs like Conyers, currently the longest-serving member in Congress. The TV spot has also done significant damage to the Democrats’ brand as the party that champions women.

Eighty-eight-year-old Conyers, who was first elected to Congress in 1964, is “an icon” who deserves due process and respect, Pelosi told a slack-jawed Chuck Todd.

“John Conyers is an icon in our country,” she said of the big-city Sixties radical. “He’s done a great deal to protect women,” Pelosi said, referencing his support for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Her laudatory remarks were promptly echoed by other Democrats in Congress.

Evidence suggests Conyers has also done a great deal to harm women, treating them like sexual playthings.

Conyers has acknowledged he settled a 2015 sexual harassment claim for $27,000 of taxpayer funds without admitting wrongdoing. He silenced his alleged victim by forcing her to sign a nondisclosure agreement. He has temporarily stepped down as ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee while he is being investigated.

Four other female Conyers employees signed affidavits saying he sexually harassed them.

In the 2015 case, Conyers settled with an ex-employee who claimed she was terminated for refusing to “succumb to [his] sexual advances.” Still bound by the nondisclosure agreement, the victim has reportedly asked for the prohibition on speaking publicly about what happened to be lifted.

According to apparently authentic redacted affidavits, the lawmaker “repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public.”

Calling Elizabeth Warren ‘Pocahontas’ is the Best Way to Fight Racism Trump isn’t hurling a racial slur at a white leftist liar. He’s exposing a racist. Daniel Greenfield

“On the shores of her Cambridge mansion, by the shining Charles River waters, stood Elizabeth Warren, pointing with her finger at the White House.”
The Song of Warrenwatha

Senator Elizabeth Warren, America’s greatest living fake Indian, is outraged.

“There he was, at a ceremony to honor Native Americans,” the former Harvard Law prof, who claimed to be Native American on account of her grandfather’s high cheekbones, fumed, “And President Trump couldn’t even make it through a ceremony to honor these men without throwing in a racial slur.”

The “racial slur” was calling a woman who is as Indian as the pilgrims, Pocahontas.

Taunting an American Indian that way might be a racial slur. Taunting Warren that way doesn’t insult her race. The millionaire former asbestos lawyer is as white as cottage cheese. It insults her character. It reminds everyone that Warren is as much a fighter for the “little guy” as she was a Cherokee.

The Senator from the High Cheekbones Tribe of Harvard isn’t just a fake Indian. She’s a fake class warfare activist.

And a fake everything.

Warren was a Republican before she turned Socialist. Before she was fighting corporations, she was helping corporations deny compensation to asbestos victims. And before she was protesting the high cost of education, Harvard Law was paying her $350,000 to teach a single course. A multinational corporation owned by billionaires then gave her a $525,000 advance to tell her tale of rising from “poverty” to fight for ordinary people who don’t get their own chair funded by Wall Street lawyers.

It would take a heart of stone not to make Pocahontas jokes about a blue-eyed scam artist so shameless she passed herself off as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color.” A grifter whose campaign tried to prove she was really Indian by citing the work of her cousin who wrote the ‘Pow Wow Chow’ cookbook containing such authentic Indian recipes as Cold Omelets with Crab Meat and Mexican Oatmeal Soup.

Unfortunately the Cold Omelets with Crab Meat recipe turned out to be plagiarized from the braves of the New York Times. Warren’s Cherokee claims are as fake as her outrage over being exposed as a liar.

There’s only one racist in this story. It’s Elizabeth Warren.

Puerto Rico Doesn’t Want Reform The Promesa law, not Hurricane Maria, is the real culprit behind the island’s troubles.By Mary Anastasia O’Grady

It has been 10 weeks since Hurricane Maria slammed into Puerto Rico. The devastation was fierce. Yet it cannot explain why almost half the generating capacity of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (Prepa) is still down.

Credit for that goes to Congress, which in June 2016 passed the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act, a k a Promesa. It opened the door to debt defaults that violate the Puerto Rican constitution and U.S. law. As is always the case when the rule of law takes a back seat to politics, it has fueled chaos.

Prepa blames its disastrous post-hurricane decisions on a shortage of cash. Yet in the immediate aftermath of the storm, a group of Prepa bondholders offered the company fresh debtor-in-possession financing that included a swap of $1 billion in existing debt for $850 million in new bonds and $1 billion in new cash.

Puerto Rico rejected the offer. “The bondholders’ proposal is not viable and would severely hamper and limit Prepa’s capacity to successfully manage its recovery,” Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority said at the time. It added that the offer had the “appearance” of “being made for the purpose of favorably impacting the trading price of existing debt.” Heaven forbid.

More unthinkable was ruining the “flat broke” image the commonwealth has been cultivating so it can write down debt and skip the matching requirements necessary to receive Federal Emergency Management Agency funds. It’s also more convenient to tap taxpayers than to borrow money from private entities asking for accountability. This is particularly true for a state-owned monopoly like Prepa, which is as much a political instrument as it is an electricity company. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Relationship Charade: Walking on Eggshells is not Reconciliation by Linda Goudsmit

Many articles have been written about the growing trend of adult children choosing estrangement in American families. The recent Thanksgiving holiday has highlighted this alarming movement toward the dissolution of family bonds of love and loyalty. What is the source of this dreadful shift? What happened to honor thy father and mother?

Sheri McGregor, M.A. has written an important book titled Done With The Crying that explores the disturbing increase in families with adult children who disown their parents. There are, of course, appropriate conditions for estrangement but the current trend appears baffling to the 9,000 confused and grieving parents surveyed who cannot fathom why the children they have loved for a lifetime are choosing to reject them. Done With The Crying attempts to help devastated parents accept their loss and move on with their lives. McGregor is asking “What now?” I am asking “Why now?”

Generation gaps between parents and their adult children have traditionally been resolved with courtesy, respect, and a sense of humor. Adult children honored their parents even when they disagreed with them and chose a different path for their own lives. A fundamental level of gratitude for the parent’s efforts and dedication allowed the differences to be minimized and the family bonds maximized. What has changed??

The bewildered parents McGregor describes cannot accept the estrangement because they simply do not understand it. She describes the staggering lack of respect, restraint, gratitude, and overarching sense of entitlement in adult children’s demand for parental conformity including restricting their parents’ freedom of speech. In the upside-down world of self-seeking millennials the parent/child role has been reversed. Parents are expected to conform to their adult child’s new norms. If the parent refuses the adult child withdraws himself to a “safe space” seeking protection from the “toxic” ideas of his parents. Toxicity, like hate speech, has been redefined as anything the adult child opposes.

Social Media, Fake News, and Free Speech Bruce Thornton

Free speech has come under attack on two fronts since Donald Trump was elected president. Many unhappy with his victory charge that Russia interfered in our election on his behalf by using social media like Facebook and Twitter, which should be held responsible for the content on their sites. Meanwhile, some political activists and politicians are calling for a revision of our free speech laws to prevent “hate” speech and “fake news” from polluting the public square. Everybody is complaining about false or biased reporting that is distracting and confusing voters with disinformation and appeals to unsavory emotions. One of the pillars of American exceptionalism, the right of citizens to speak freely, no matter how rough or hateful their words, seems to be tottering.

The revelations that Russian propaganda exploited social media to affect the outcome of the election has resulted in Twitter, Facebook, and Google executives getting hauled before Congress to answer questions about the parts their businesses may have played in supposed Russian electoral interference. According to the testimony of these executives, Russian-sponsored Facebook ads reached 135 million American voters over 32 months, and the New York Times reports “more than 126 million users potentially saw inflammatory political ads bought by a Kremlin-linked company, the Internet Research Agency.” Many Congressmen from both parties demanded to know what social media companies will do to control the dissemination of questionable or hostile information.

Similarly, even before the violent demonstrations by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia last summer, critics were demanding a revision of our First Amendment in order to make it resemble the laws in Europe that prohibit “hate speech” and speech that attempts to “spread, incite, promote, or justify hatred based on intolerance.” The “free marketplace of ideas,” critics argue, in the age of the internet is no longer adequate for sorting out “legitimate” speech from hateful propaganda that, if left unchecked, could lead to political tyranny, as happened in Germany under Nazism in the in the 1920s and ’30s. The safety of the larger political community should take precedence over the right of individual citizens to speak their minds.

Fourth Amendment Showdown The Supreme Court takes up phone searches in the digital age.

How difficult should it be for law enforcement to get cellphone records showing a suspect’s past location? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Wednesday in Carpenter v. U.S., which challenges decades of Fourth Amendment law.

Timothy Carpenter is serving 116 years in prison for a string of armed robberies. During the investigation, the government obtained 127 days of location data from Carpenter’s wireless carrier, showing that his phone connected to cell towers near the crime scenes.

The first question is whether this constitutes an “unreasonable search,” which would trigger Fourth Amendment protections requiring a warrant. The government says no, arguing the location data didn’t belong to Carpenter, but were business records created by the phone company. This distinction is important, since it invokes the “third-party doctrine” that police investigations have relied on for decades.

This doctrine mirrors the basic idea that law enforcement may gather evidence from witnesses. Just as police can canvass neighborhood shopkeepers, they ought to be able to ask a phone carrier whether its network “saw” the suspect. Ten minutes before the robbery, did he make a call that was handled by a cell tower down the street? Or was he texting in Toledo?

Denzel Washington Is Making Sense He emphasizes the need for discipline at home, while Betsy DeVos considers withdrawing a decree against discipline at school. Jason Riley

Denzel Washington made some remarks the other day that bear highlighting if only because sensible social commentary from Hollywood celebrities is so rare.

At a New York screening of Mr. Washington’s latest film, “ Roman J. Israel, Esq. ,” the actor was asked by a reporter: “For black people in particular, do you think that we can truly make change as things are right now?”

Mr. Washington, who is 62, gave a pointed response. “Well, it starts in the home. If the father is not in the home, the boy will find a father in the streets. I saw it in my generation and every generation before me and every one since.” He added, “If the streets raise you, then the judge becomes your mother and prison becomes your home.”

In the film, Mr. Washington portrays a defense attorney, and reporters at the screening pressed him to weigh in on current debates about race and the U.S. criminal justice system. Instead, the actor doubled down on his message of strong families and personal responsibility. “It starts with how you raise your children,” he said. “If a young man doesn’t have a father figure, he’ll go find a father figure. So you can’t blame the system. It’s unfortunate that we make such easy work for them.”

What is remarkable is not that the Oscar-winning actor, who has been the national spokesman for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America since 1992, expressed these sentiments. Such talk is commonplace in black churches and beauty salons and barbershops and community centers. What’s remarkable is that Mr. Washington opted to say what he did within earshot of so many whites. Black political leaders and activist organizations, in an effort to raise money and stay relevant, much prefer to focus on racial prejudice when publicly discussing black-white disparities. Mr. Washington broke with that protocol. In private, those on the black left might acknowledge that black children watch too much television and read too few books. In public, however, they blame the achievement gap on biased standardized tests and racist school administrators.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told reporters Monday that the administration is “looking closely” at reversing the Obama administration’s controversial approach to school discipline, which urged schools to take race into account when deciding whether to suspend a disruptive student. “It would be premature to say anything about that right now, but we want to make sure that all students have an opportunity to learn in an environment that’s safe,” she added. A 2014 guidance letter sent by Mrs. DeVos’s predecessor warned school districts that any racial imbalance in suspension and expulsion rates could trigger a federal civil-rights investigation. Given that black and Hispanic students are more likely to attend violent schools and thus more likely to become the targets of bullies, policies that go easy on misbehaving students inevitably hurt low-income minorities the most.

A Drama Queen Loses Her Head The woman who put the acting in acting director is deposed.

More hilarity ensued in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s game of thrones Tuesday when the acting acting director Leandra English got her head handed to her by a federal judge.

After doing photo-ops with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Ms. English continued pretending to be the CFPB acting director. But by the day’s close, the drama queen was formally deposed. Federal judge Timothy Kelly denied Ms. English’s petition for a temporary restraining order to block Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney from serving as the real acting director. President Trump appointed Mr. Mulvaney on Friday under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act after Richard Cordray resigned and anointed Ms. English.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel affirmed the President’s authority to appoint Mr. Mulvaney. And even CFPB general counsel Mary McLeod affirmed this legal interpretation in a memo to staff on Saturday.

The opinion “confirms my oral advice to the Senior Leadership Team,” she wrote, which suggests that both Mr. Cordray and Ms. English were aware that their political stunt was illegal but went ahead anyway. So the supposedly noble Mr. Cordray was setting up his young protégé to be embarrassed.

Ms. English called up former CFPB senior attorney Deepak Gupta, who filed the lawsuit for her as an individual. To obtain a temporary restraining order, she’d have to show she would suffer immediate irreparable harm from being usurped—beyond the humiliation she’s inflicted on herself. She couldn’t and now must decide whether to continue as deputy under the real acting director or quit in embarrassment.