‘Men Without Work’: America’s ‘Quiet Catastrophe’ of Unemployment

America is in the midst of an ongoing crisis that predates the war in Iraq, with devastating, far-reaching consequences exceeding those of the 2016 presidential election. Some 10 million able-bodied men between the ages of 20 and 64 are missing from the workforce today.

Work rates for prime-aged adult men in this country have been falling for most of the post-World War II era. In his newly released book, “Men Without Work” from Templeton Press, AEI political economist and demographer Nicholas Eberstadt explains the economic, historic, and cultural precedents for this modern tragedy.

“Romans used the word ‘decimation’ to describe the loss of a tenth of a given unit of men,” Eberstadt writes. “The United States has suffered something akin to a decimation of its male workforce over the past 50 years.”

He adds, however, that “unlike the dead soldiers in Roman antiquity, our decimated men still live and walk among us, though in an existence without productive economic purpose.”

Hiding in plain sight

Politicians, economists, and the mainstream media have failed to detect this aggressive cancer and diagnose its symptoms, and so the problem has remained largely untreated, metastasizing within our borders for the last half century.

In “Men Without Work,” listed are recent examples of when the mainstream media failed to capture this problem “hiding in plain sight”:

The Jobless Numbers Aren’t Just Good, They’re Great (Bloomberg, August 2015)

The Jobs Report is Even Better Than It Looks (FiveThirtyEight, November 2015)

Healthy Job Market at Odds with Global Gloom” (The Wall Street Journal, March 2016)

June’s Super Jobs Report (Atlantic Monthly, July 2016).

Further, it points out that U.S. economists and policymakers seem to have formed a bipartisan consensus that the nation’s economy is either at or near “full employment,” when “we are, in reality, living through a period of extraordinary, Great Depression-scale underutilization of male manpower.”

But if circumstances are so dire, why haven’t we noticed the effects? Eberstadt offers two explanations for why this “quiet postwar collapse of male work” did not lead to political outcry/crises or chronic issues of worker shortage in various industries. The first is the progressive and exponential growth of women in the workforce after World War II. The second factor is the voluntary exodus of men from the workforce.

The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), the common statistical tool used to gauge economic health and growth, only accounts for the number of people who are either employed or actively seeking employment. What it doesn’t account for, however, are the individuals who are unemployed and not actively looking for work. Because this drop in male employment is caused by a “willing outmigration,” it flies under the radar (as far as official government statistics are concerned).

Invisible men

Who are these invisible “men without work”? Based on a variety of demographical factors, Nicholas Eberstadt concludes that they are most likely to be 1. less educated; 2. never married and without children; 3. native born; and 4. African-American. But, he clarifies, the task of predicting who is more likely to become a not-in-the-labor-force (NILF) male isn’t that simple:

“No matter their race or educational status, married men raising a family work more, and never-married men without children or children in their home work less. No matter their ethnicity or race, prime-age men who come to this country work more than those here by birth.”

He notes that while that wedding rings and green cards don’t ensure “innate advantage in the competition for jobs,” decisions to marry or migrate “point to motivations, aspirations, priorities, values, and other intangibles that do so much to explain real-world human achievements.”

Free from the time commitments of family, work, work travel, and job searching, NILFs have more spare time than any other category of Americans (Eberstadt estimates this to be an additional 2,150 hours a year compared to employed men). What’s shocking, however, is how little of this extra free time is spent “helping others in their family or community.”

Based on data from 2014, these men spent less time engaged in religious and volunteer activities. By contrast, the amount of time this group spent on socializing, relaxing, and leisure — e.g. gambling, tobacco and drug use, listening to the radio, and arts and crafts “as a hobby” — amounted to a full-time job.

Quiet catastrophe

“Americans may be the hardest working people of any affluent society in the world today, yet no other developed nation simultaneously floats such a large proportion of its prime-age men entirely outside the labor force … ,” AEI’s Eberstadt observes.

One possible reason for this, he suggests, could be greater social toleration for unemployed able-bodied men who subsist on the produce of others, be they family, wives or partners, or the government. And though well-informed people are bound to disagree about the causes of this uniquely American problem, the consequences are manifold.

In addition to the economic consequences of an underutilized male work force, there are social repercussions of this modern catastrophe — such as family breakdown, increased dependency on government-funded programs like welfare and disability, and increased economic dependency of able-bodied men on women. Political consequences include male withdrawal from civic engagement, community participation, and voluntary association.

Finally, the additional costs associated with the human need for purpose, as opposed to mere “work,” are noted. Foremost, it is the loss of self-purpose and accomplishment, and the inevitable loss of self-esteem and respect of others that emanate from perpetually idle hands.

“Men Without Work” admits that as of now, there is no clear or simple solution to this “grave social ill,” but there are at least three areas of focus that can help to propel the country in the right direction:

1. “revitalizing American business and its job-generating capacities”;

2. “reducing the immense and perverse disincentives against male work embedded in our social welfare programs”;

3. “coming to terms with the enormous challenge of bringing convicts and felons back into our economy and society.”

Nicholas Eberstadt calls for collaborative problem solving, and stresses that a bipartisan effort is needed to eradicate this modern “social emasculation” and bring these men “back into the workplace, back into their families, and back into civil society.” (For more from the author of “‘Men Without Work’: America’s ‘Quiet Catastrophe’ of Unemployment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Queen of Political Opportunism: 5 Things You Don’t Know About Hillary

Americans feel like they know everything there is to know about Hillary Clinton — and Donald Trump for that matter.

But there are five things you may not know about Hillary.

1. Pakistan

Hillary criticized Senator Obama’s position when he advocated for attacking terrorists havens in Pakistan before she took credit for advising him to send Seal Team 6 into Pakistan to capture and kill Obama Bin Laden. Clinton lies and hypocricy should not shock anybody, yet this duplicitous claim has gone under reported.

PolitiFacts reported back on February 27, 2008:

At the Democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Feb. 26, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton stole a line from Sen. John McCain and President Bush.

Clinton said that last summer, Sen. Barack Obama “basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take.”

Clinton’s line echoes recent comments by McCain, who told reporters Feb. 20 that Obama “suggested bombing Pakistan,” and Bush, who said in a Feb. 17 TV interview that he didn’t know much about Obama’s foreign policy except that “he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad.

This was one of those issues that raised Republican eyebrows when Senator Obama argued that if he had actionable intelligence that bad guys were hiding in Pakistan, he would use it and not hesitate to act on it. A position that is reasonable and had many Republicans siding with Obama over McCain.

It was truly bizarre that Sen. McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 32%) and Hillary Clinton would hit him on that statement because it was the right position — and that hypothetical became reality when Hillary was secretary of state.

Obama’s position was mapped out on August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and said (as quoted by PolitiFacts):

I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Hillary criticized that statement, yet she repeatedly bragged that she advised President Obama to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. According to a Washington Post account “Through weeks of sometimes heated White House debate in 2011, Clinton was alone among the president’s topmost cabinet officers to back [the Osama Bin Laden raid].” I guess she supported the raid before she opposed it.

Too bad Hillary was not as decisive during the Benghazi attacks when Americans were at risk. She seems to have run away from that disaster and you will not find heroic chapters in any of her books detailing her tough choices when it comes to Libya. All of her decisions with regard to the Libyan war and the Benghazi attacks were wrong.

2. Flip Flop on Marriage

Hillary was for traditional marriage before she became a self-proclaimed champion for gay marriage. What a profile in courage!

In 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton spoke on the Senate floor and said the following when voicing opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one woman and one man:

I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond, between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage. To stand up for marriage. I believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution, are less committed to the sanctity of marriage. To the fundamental bedrock principal that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history, humanity and civilization and its primary principal role in during those millennia are those raising and socializing of children into society where they are about to become adults.

Wow — she would be jailed as a deplorable hate monger for saying those things today.

Can you imagine if Donald Trump said those words during the last debate? Hillary would have called him a homophobic, anti-gay bigot. Only a Clinton could be 100% pro traditional marriage in 2004, then completely flip flop ten years later and make believe that she always supported gay marriage.

3. Clinton Tax Avoidance

Although the Clinton campaign is apoplectic that Trump will not release his returns and evidently used a massive capital gains loss as a way to avoid paying taxes, Hillary seems to have done the exact same thing. From Zero Hedge:

While not on the scale of Trump’s business “operating loss”, Hillary Clinton – like many ‘wealthy’ individuals is taking advantage of a legal scheme to use historical losses to avoid paying current taxes.

I guess that makes her smart to avoid paying taxes, but a hypocrite for hitting Trump for taking advantage of the same tax law that she took.

4. Senator Clinton’s List of Accomplishments

Hillary Clinton acts as though she has had a long and distinguished career as a politician, yet her time as senator resulted in very few accomplishments.

According to a National Review Online piece from July 28, 2016 written by Nicole Goeser and John R. Lott, Jr.:

In her eight years in the Senate, just one of Hillary’s bills got enacted into law. This bill designated the U.S. courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York City as the “Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.”

Pretty lame record of accomplishment.

5. Hillary Changed Her Name for Political Purposes

How does President Hillary Rodham sound? Before Hillary changed her name to adopt Bill Clinton’s last name, she had been a good feminist and refused to take his surname. One could not be a Clinton without flip flopping on an issue as central to a person’s being as one’s last name.

According to a U.S News and World Report story from January 30, 2007:

When Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were wed on Oct. 11, 1975, she kept her maiden name, not realizing it would become a controversial decision. After her husband’s defeat for re-election in the 1980 Arkansas gubernatorial election, she changed her surname to Clinton. Voters had questioned their marriage’s stability.

Shocking to think that in 1975 Rodham and Clinton had marital problems. Who knew?

These five facts are yet five more reasons that confirm American’s belief that Hillary Rodham Clinton is untrustworthy, duplicitous and dishonest. Clinton has flip flopped on issues from the Bin Laden raid to her own last name. (For more from the author of “Queen of Political Opportunism: 5 Things You Don’t Know About Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns

There’s only one news story popping up for the Sunday morning circus and it’s the long anticipated October surprise from The New York Times. Late Saturday evening they released a partial set of state tax documents belonging to Donald Trump which show a nearly one billion dollar business loss he took more than twenty years ago. As Business Insider explains, this factoid allows them to speculate that The Donald may have paid no federal taxes for nearly twenty years.

Donald Trump may have avoided paying federal income taxes for 18 years, according to tax records obtained by The New York Times and published on Saturday night.

The documents indicated that Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995, providing him with a deduction so large it could have eliminated his obligation to legally pay annual federal taxes by up to $50 million for nearly two decades, tax experts told The Times.

The fire under all of this smoke is, of course, barely enough to light a cigar, but that’s not the point of the story. You’ll notice a constant set of phrases in all of the coverage of this “bombshell” release. They include things such as, might have and could have or may not have paid. That’s because the actual document only shows a massive loss which Trump claimed in 1995. What’s been established is that the loss in question opened the door to Trump potentially not owing any federal taxes over a considerable period of time because of the $916M loss. What’s also mentioned in decidedly muted tones is that if Trump wound up not owing any federal tax, that it was completely legal.

Let’s assume for a moment that Trump took full advantage of the tax laws in the way being described. (And frankly I’d start questioning his sanity if he didn’t.) This means that the Times has “caught” him following the tax code to pay the smallest amount of tax possible under the law. I mean, it’s not like anyone else does that, right? If Trump were A Good Person he would have massively overpaid his taxes and then we could all celebrate what a wonderful fellow he is, just like the people who handle the tax returns of the New York Times. Oh, wait… in 2014 the Gray Lady paid zero taxes and received millions in refunds despite having declared a substantial profit. (Read more from “The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Left-Wing Hoax Site Snopes Lies Again for the Clintons as Even Charity Navigator Is Trapped in Their Web of Corruption

Yeah, Trump’s tax returns are a thing:

Oh, and then I received this reminder:

Yet, the bogus “myth-busting” site known as Snopes is covering for the Clintons once again, claiming that the Clinton Foundation is all above board and that Hillary’s write-offs are no big deal.

They use the newly revamped assessment of Charity Navigator, a once legitimate watchdog of charitable non-profits, that has altered its assessment of the Clinton Foundation a full 180 degrees.

As famed DC reporter Mark Tapscott observes:

A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.

Charity Navigator awarded the Clinton Foundation four-stars based on an rating algorithm that scored the controversial non-profit with a 97.5 on financial issues and 93 on accountability and transparency. The new rating represented a boost for the foundation, as Charity Navigator had previously put it on its watch list due to concerns about its finances and transparency.

Forensic accounting expert Charles Ortel has conduncted an exhaustive review of the Clinton Global Graft Initiative. His findings, in summary, are stark:

…the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date–as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.

In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants…

At this point, Snopes should just syndicate content from Media Matters, because it now has all the credibility of that Soros-funded propaganda mill.

And Charity Navigator needs to bone up on Charles Ortel’s work before they fall any further into the cesspool of Clinton corruption. (For more from the author of “Left-Wing Hoax Site Snopes Lies Again for the Clintons as Even Charity Navigator Is Trapped in Their Web of Corruption” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TSA ‘Virtual Strip Searches’ Linked to Deaths

The legal battle over the Transportation Security Administration’s installation of Advanced Imaging Technology – its “virtual strip search” machines – in airports has gone on for nearly a decade, and it’s focused mostly on privacy rights.

The feds use an X-ray type technology designed to reveal whether an airline passenger is carrying a weapon or another banned item underneath clothing.

But there have been numerous lawsuits over the images the machines create – initially an essentially nude rendering of the passenger – and how the images were handled. The agency said it altered its software so that the images now render a “stick figure” that doesn’t reveal intimate details.

But now there’s a lawsuit raising another claim: The machines are responsible for hundreds of deaths per year.

The lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Rutherford Institute against the Department of Transportation and the TSA. (Read more from “TSA ‘Virtual Strip Searches’ Linked to Deaths” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement”

As far as message discipline goes, Donald Trump may not be the wild one among our two presidential candidates.

After first tarring half of Mr. Trump’s supporters as racist bigots and other “deplorables”, her royal heinous has now gone after Bernie Sanders’ passionate backers.

Apparently, according to the one who wears custom-fitted tarpaulins, those who supported Sanders all work in Starbucks and live in their parents’ basement.

Which does raise a good point:

And they talk about Trump being off message? (For more from the author of “HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pushing Back Against the PC Madness

Things are getting so crazy these days that it’s not just religious conservatives who are pushing back against the PC madness. Even Hollywood liberals are speaking out.

But first, the latest example of PC insanity.

At the prestigious Duke University campus, where in-state tuition is close to $50,000, “The Duke Men’s Project, launched this month and hosted by the campus Women’s Center, offers a nine-week program for ‘male-identified’ students that discusses male privilege, patriarchy, ‘the language of dominance,’ rape culture, pornography, machismo and other topics.”

So, to be clear, this only applies to men who identify as men. What is not clear is if it would apply to women who identify as men – but then again, if it did, the program wouldn’t apply to them, since it’s unlikely that a woman who identified as a man would be as rotten and misogynistic and privileged as a man who identified as a man.

It’s those biological males who identify as males. Those are the really bad apples. Shame on them for being men!

Writing for FoxNews.com, Jillian Kay Melchior reports, “The student newspaper’s editorial board endorsed the new program yesterday, insisting it was ‘not a reeducation camp being administered by an oppressed group in the service of the feminization of American society.””

And why, pray tell, did they feel the need to defend themselves against such a ludicrous charge? Who would ever think that this wonderful new program sounded like “a reeducation camp being administered by an oppressed group in the service of the feminization of American society”?

According to Dipro Bhowmik, a junior who sits on the leadership team, “the goal of the Duke Men’s Project is for male students to ‘critique and analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities to create healthier ones.’”

Of course, I’m all for exposing the evils of pornography and rebuking the male abuse of women, but please. Enough with this “toxic masculinities” nonsense.

Push Back

The good news is that, with the rising tide of PC madness on our campuses and beyond, more and more people are pushing back. Charlie Nash writes that “American Psycho author Bret Easton Ellis attacked ‘PC victim culture,’ microaggressions, and campus crybabies in a long monologue of his own during the latest episode of the Bret Easton Ellis podcast.”

His words are worth quoting at length.

If you cannot read Shakespeare, or Melville, or Toni Morrison because it will trigger something traumatic in you, and you’ll be harmed by the reading of the text because you are still defining yourself through your self-victimization, then you need to see a doctor. If you feel you are experiencing microaggressions because someone asks you where you are from, or ‘can you help me with my math,’ or offers a ‘god bless you’ after you sneeze, and you feel like all of this is some kind of mass societal dis, then you need to seek help. Professional help.

Nash notes that Ellis branded the “widespread epidemic of self-victimization” and “defining yourself” by “a traumatic thing that happened to you in the past” as an illness.

And, Ellis urged, this “is something you need to resolve before you re-enter society. What you are doing to yourself is harming yourself, and seriously annoying others around you. The fact that you can’t listen to a joke, view imagery, and that you categorize everything as either sexist, or racist, or homophobic, whether it is or not, and therefore harmful to you and you just can’t take it, is a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis that we have been coddling, encouraging people to think that life should be a smooth utopia built only for them and their fragile sensibility. In essence, staying a child forever. Living in a fairy-tale.”

And remember: These are the words of the author of American Psycho, not the words of the author of, say, The Conservative Christian’s Guide to Reclaiming America.

Had they been the words of a conservative Christian author, as in my made-up title, they would be vilified and rejected in the strongest possible terms. After all, what conservative Christian could get away with referring to today’s self-absorbed, hyper-sensitive, microaggression madness with terms like “a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis”?

Nash also reports that Hollywood director Tim Burton recently “slammed political correctness in his response to criticism about the ‘lack of diversity’ in his films, claiming that he is far more offended when producers cast minority actors in their projects for the sole reason of diversity.”

The pushback is taking place on college campuses as well.

Over in Canada, “As part of an hour-long YouTube lecture on political correctness, University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is objecting to the Trudeau government’s Bill C-16, which proposes to outlaw harassment and discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.”

Peterson actually “compares the changes Bill C-16 would bring about to the policing of expression in ‘totalitarian and authoritarian political states,’” and he “argues against the existence of non-binary gender identities, or those that are not exclusively masculine or feminine, saying ‘I don’t think there’s any evidence for it.’”

How bold!

Indeed, “Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: ‘I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.’”

And what was it that caused this professor to speak out, potentially endangering his career? “Peterson told the National Post that he decided to make the video and go public with his views after receiving a memo from university HR outlining new mandatory anti-racist and anti-bias training. ‘That disturbs me because if someone asked me to take anti-bias training, I think I am agreeing that I am sufficiently racist or biased to need training.’”

You can expect more and more responses like this, since there’s only so far things can bend before they snap and break.

After all, when the naked emperor not only begins to flaunt his new “clothes” but orders everyone to celebrate his wardrobe, the gasps of shock will quickly turn to shouts of mockery.

A person can only disguise his nakedness for so long. (For more from the author of “The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arch to Temple of Baal Arrives in New York City

A 50-foot replica of the arch forming the entrance to the Temple of Baal was installed in New York earlier this month, honoring the symbol of a pagan deity that the Islamic State destroyed in 2015. According to the New York Times, the 2,000-year-old Syrian town of Palmyra brought Muslims and Christians together for centuries. What the NYT won’t tell you is the Jewish history of the Temple of Baal and the abomination that it was for God’s people to be remotely connected to it.

Baal was a Canaanite god in Old Testament times. The Israelites grieved God by turning from Him and worshiping Baal, creating idols, participating in sexual immorality and sacrificing their children to the pagan deity. The Israelites’ unfaithfulness to God, even after He brought them out of Egypt, incensed the Lord, and on many occasions He gave them over to their enemies. It was their unfaithfulness and Baal worship that ultimately led to their captivity and displacement as a nation.

Jonathan Cahn, New York Times best-selling author of The Harbinger and well-known messianic rabbi, introduced the unveiling of the arch in New York via video on September 19. Cahn explains that, just as in ancient Israel, “harbingers,” or signs, are appearing in America, perhaps warning the nation of God’s impending judgment on the land. Also as in the case of ancient Israel, America continues to dig deeper in sin and “brazen defiance of God.”

“If America is following in the footsteps of ancient Israel away from God and to judgment, could there be a link to Baal?” Cahn questions. “Of course, no one in America would admit to worshiping Baal. But the truth is American culture is filled with other gods and idols. When a civilization turns away from God, it always ends up bringing in other gods in His place.”

Just after the unveiling, Cahn stood before the arch, and commented on the connections between ancient Israel and America. “And here, now on American soil, in back of me, is the manifesting of the sign of Baal,” adding that Baal’s presence in ancient Israel, as in America now, represented the sign of a nation that departed from its God, a nation in apostasy from God, a nation that once knew good and evil, but now calls evil “good” and good “evil,” a nation that offers its children as sacrifices and a nation that persecutes the followers of God. “And now, September, 2016,” said Cahn, “this harbinger has appeared to America.”

“Since 9/11, America has not only not returned to God — it has rebelled against Him in an ever deepening, ever intensifying and ever accelerating apostasy,” Cahn said. “It is eerily following the judgment template of the harbingers and the footsteps of ancient Israel as it headed to destruction.”

Roger Michael, Executive Director of Oxford University’s Institute for Digital archeology, discussed parallels between the violence in Palmyra, London and New York, reported the Guardian. “It is our hope that the arch, itself an icon of destruction and rebirth, will remind visitors of both the universality of suffering and the indomitable human capacity to rebuild what has been lost,” Michael said.

The ancient Israelites failed to repent when God’s warnings came, Cahn said, and vowed to rebuild. Isaiah 9:10 recorded their hard-heartedness towards repentance:

The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.

(For more from the author of “Arch to Temple of Baal Arrives in New York City” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old

An Ethiopian immigrant who was working as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Portland, Oregon is behind bars, charged with rape, unlawful sexual penetration and other sexual contact with patients who were 87 and 94 years old.

Around a half dozen other alleged victims came forward after the September 14 arrest of Adeladilew A. Mekonen and he is likely to face “many more charges,” the Washington County Sheriff’s Department confirmed to Breitbart News. As the online record of who is in custody in Washington County shows, the 34-year-old suspect is currently facing 18 charges.

Even more shocking: a lawsuit filed on behalf of the 87-year-old victim claims that many of the assaults could’ve been prevented had the hospital where the accused rapist worked acted after the 94-year-old victim told the hospital she had been raped back in June.

The lawsuit alleges that Providence St. Vincent Medical Center:

knew and had reason to know that Adeladilew Mekonen had abused and was likely to again sexually abuse ill and elderly female patients, including plaintiff, if he were allowed to be alone with them in their rooms, and yet defendant Providence directed and allowed Mekonen to continue to attend such female patients, including plaintiff, under such circumstances.

(Read more from “More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Should Make Decision That Upholds That Congress, Not Agencies, Should Make Criminal Law

As the United States Supreme Court begins its new term next Monday, one of the first cases it will hear is Salman v. United States, a significant criminal case involving insider trading, one of the murkiest areas of criminal law.

In 2004, Bassam Salman, a grocery wholesaler, received valuable inside information from his brother-in-law-to-be Michael Kara, who, in turn, had received the information from his brother Maher Kara (Maher Kara married Salman’s sister in 2005), an investment banker at Citigroup.

Although there was no allegation that Salman gave any money or goods to either Michael or Maher Kara, Salman was subsequently convicted of insider trading.

To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the insider (the tipper) received some personal benefit from the person to whom the information was given (the tippee). The Salman case asks whether strengthening a family bond by giving a “gift” of inside information to a relative is a legally sufficient benefit to the tipper to sustain the tippee’s conviction for insider trading.

What Is Insider Trading?

There can be no crime without law, and only Congress can enact federal criminal law; the Supreme Court has reiterated these principles time and again. Yet there is no federal statute that clearly defines and prohibits the federal crime of insider trading.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 addresses one subspecies of the offense (the short-swing profit, a purchase and sale of stock within a six-month window by a “beneficial owner, director, or officer,” driven by nonpublic information).

Other demarcations between legal and illegal trading have not come from Congress, but rather have come from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the judiciary.

There is a federal law (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) that outlaws “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations” promulgated by the SEC. SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibits fraudulent or deceitful practices “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” Other regulations purport to flesh out the details, but they are clear as mud.

The Supreme Court has stepped in to demystify—in Congress’s stead—when insider trading is and is not a crime. In 1983, in Dirks v. SEC, the court held that insider trading by the recipient of nonpublic information is prohibited only when the corporate insider who discloses the information personally benefits from the disclosure and the recipient who trades on the information “knows or should know” that the disclosure constitutes a breach of the insider’s fiduciary duty to his corporation.

The court went on to state that “[a]bsent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders,” and therefore no crime has occurred. That leaves open the question of what exactly is and is not a personal gain or benefit to the tipper that will trigger liability. Although, the court said in dictum (a statement in a court opinion that is not necessary to resolve the legal issues in that particular case, and which, although perhaps persuasive, lacks the full force of binding precedent) in the Dirks case that one could be held liable “when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”

To clarify this concept, if an individual trades on information he innocently overhears from a CEO at a high school track meet, there is no tippee liability for insider trading because the tipper unwittingly disclosed the information without receiving a personal benefit.

While that seems an unlikely venue to get stock tips, legendary football coach Barry Switzer once benefitted from that precise scenario and was cleared of wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the classic example of insider trading occurs when a corporate employee tips insider information to a friend who then trades on that information and splits the profits with the employee. Here, the tipper received a clear, monetary benefit in exchange for providing the illicit information.

Yet, cases are often not so cut-and-dry as to what amounts to a personal benefit. Salman is expected to have far-reaching consequences on the scope of liability, depending on what the Supreme Court decides constitutes a “personal benefit” to an insider.

In 2012, a federal district court judge in New York City, Jed Rakoff, long considered a leading authority in both criminal law and securities law, wrote an opinion affirming an insider trading conviction, in which he stated that “the benefit does not need to be financial or tangible in nature; it could include, for example, maintaining a useful networking contact, improving the reputation or power within the company, obtaining future financial benefits, or just maintaining or furthering a friendship.” (Emphasis added.)

However, in 2014, in U.S. v. Newman, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which includes New York—held otherwise, proclaiming that the personal benefit requirement:

does not suggest that the Government may prove the receipt of a personal benefit by the mere fact of a friendship, particularly of a casual or social nature. If that were true, and the Government was allowed to meet its burden by proving that two individuals were alumni of the same school or attended the same church, the personal benefit requirement would be a nullity.

Newman gave the personal benefit requirement its bite back by requiring proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”

Under Newman, a tippee can no longer be held criminally liable for trading a tip received from a friend without there being a more tangible benefit passing to the tipper.

Ironically, the 9th Circuit’s opinion affirming Salman’s conviction was written by none other than Rakoff, who was sitting by designation on that court. That opinion effectively reinstituted the pre-Newman, loose personal benefit standard, which concludes that a tipper who has a friendship or familial relationship with a tippee need not receive any more tangible benefit for passing on the information in order to subject the tippee to criminal liability.

Supreme Implications

Now, it is up to the Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on either the 2nd Circuit’s more tangible personal benefit standard or the 9th Circuit’s looser standard.

The court should be reluctant to adopt the 9th Circuit’s standard. First, this definition would give prosecutors incredibly broad power, enabling them to prosecute tippees, even remote tippees, based on an intangible and somewhat amorphous “benefit” (if it can be called that) to the tipper.

As stated in an amicus brief filed on behalf of businessman Mark Cuban—who knows a thing or two about insider trading lawsuits—“any tip to a friend or relative could suffice to jail the tipper irrespective of any receipt of concrete benefit from the exchange” if the Supreme Court does not curtail the SEC’s attempt to expand the reach of insider trading law through litigation.

More fundamentally, however, while this case does not present an opportunity to the court to re-examine Dirks, which seems to be settled law, the Supreme Court should not go one step further—however opprobrious the tipper’s conduct was here, and it was—in criminalizing conduct that has not been clearly proscribed by Congress.

As stated above, the Supreme Court held as far back as 1812 in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, and several times since then, that there are no federal common law offenses and that before someone can be punished as a criminal, his conduct must “plainly and unmistakably” run afoul of a federal criminal statute.

As the court has also stated, “because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures, and not courts, should define criminal activity.”

The court deviated from this sound reasoning in Dirks, a move that has seemingly been tolerated by Congress. The court should not compound its error by going one step further, even if it seems like a small step. If Congress wishes to criminalize insider trading or expand the scope of current criminal liability, it can and should do so.

The court should send a signal to Congress in the Salman case that it needs to take back its authority to define criminal conduct; to provide greater direction to the courts, the SEC, the Department of Justice, and the public about what is and is not permissible; and to alleviate the concerns of parties who may be engaging in lawful trading, but who nonetheless fear the government may think otherwise. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Should Make Decision That Upholds That Congress, Not Agencies, Should Make Criminal Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.