Friday, April 29, 2016

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)


ROOTS OF BDS

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign seeks to delegitimize and destroy Israel. It has made its presence felt on many college campuses. Whence BDS? Bret Stephensand Caroline Glick devote invaluable columns to the question this week.
Both columns are based on the eye-opening testimony presented by former Treasury official Jonathan Schanzer, now with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism at a hearing on threats to Israel held on April 19. Schanzer’s testimony traces the roots of BDS to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and KindHearts for Charitable Development — three organizations implicated in financing Hamas between 2001 and 2011.
Schanzer points out that while members of the three organizations’ leadership were jailed, deported, or otherwise brought to justice, many high-level and mid-level figures remained in the United States. Schanzer demonstrates that many of them have gravitated to a new organization called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). In his testimony Schanzer documents the involvement of seven former “key employees” of now-defunct Hamas-linked organizations who are now associated with AMP.
Schanzer testified that AMP is a Chicago-based organization and leading driver of the BDS campaign. According to Schanzer, AMP is arguably the most important sponsor and organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States. AMP provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called “Apartheid Wall,” and grants to SJP activists. AMP even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country. According to an email it sent to subscribers, AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone. The subcommittee has posted Schanzer’s heavily footnoted written testimony here.
A Berkeley lecturer with the improbably Dickensian name of Hatem Bazian figures prominently in the BDS movement and in SJP. Bazian condemns Schanzer’s testimony herefor McCarthyism and (surprise!) Islamophobia. Winfield Myers comments: “As usual, Bazian offers fact-free, cliche-ridden bluster in lieu of rigorous rebuttal. It’s all he’s got.” The video below begins with Schanzer’s brief statement to the subcommittee.
 
 
Quotable quote: “I should also note that AMP at their 2014 annual conference held a panel inviting guests to ‘come navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.’ It’s also noteworthy that a recent photograph from AMP’s suburban Chicago headquarters features a poster with the phrase ‘No Jew will live among them in Jerusalem.’ This sounds a lot like promoting Hamas’s agenda here in the United States if you ask me.”

What the Supreme Court could do with a durable liberal majority.

TED OLSON’S BAD IDEA, TAKE 2

Further to Paul’s point below on “Ted Olson’s Bad Idea,” just take in the dreams of Erwin Chemerinsky, writing a couple weeks ago in The Atlantic about his ideas for what the Supreme Court could do with a durable liberal majority. Chemernisky, one of the leading liberal law professors in the country, doesn’t even try to disguise or dress up his undemocratic will to power:
Thinking of a Court where there are five or even six justices appointed by Democratic presidents is tantalizing for those on the left, like me, who have spent their entire careers with a Court that has been decidedly right of center. So, where might it most make a difference? . .
Death penalty. In 2015, in Glossip v. Gross, Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, explaining why the death penalty is unconstitutional. Most expect that Sotomayor and Kagan would come to the same conclusion if there were a fifth vote to end the death penalty.
This, even though the death penalty is specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Second Amendment. Until 2008, not once did the Supreme Court find a law to violate the Second Amendment. Then, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court, by a 5-4 margin, declared unconstitutional a 35-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court. A Supreme Court bench with five Democratic appointees will not extend this protection for gun rights and likely would overrule it, returning to the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to have guns for the purpose of militia service.
Also completely ahistorical. But easy to get around. Idaho will simply declare every adult citizen to be a member of the state militia.
Dreaming. The possibility of five or six Democratic justices allows one to imagine what might be done in other areas. Might the Court find a constitutional right to education and conclude that disparities in school funding violate the Constitution? Might the Court find that the racial injustices in the criminal-justice system violate equal protection? For so long, progressives have had to focus primarily on keeping the Court from overturning precedents and limiting rights. Justice Scalia’s death and the coming presidential election allows liberals to dream of how much a different Court could do to advance liberty and justice for all.
Chemerinsky’s dream could well become the American nightmare over the next few years. Given the Democratic Party’s lust for the exercise of raw judicial power, Republicans would be right to cite this article as reason for opposing every single Democratic Supreme Court nominee, starting with Garland.

JFarrish 04/28

Interesting Day for Stocks

By April 28, 2016Jims Notes




I know it is late and you were expecting this update hours ago… but, I have been busy! I had to say that because that is the number one excuse I hear form everyone today when I ask why something is not done. Yes, we are all busy and doing more than we should, but in the end that is what makes life worth living… being fully engaged and sliding into the grave yelling, “what a ride!” That said, what is the problem with investors? We started the day worried about the Bank of Japan, but the buyers brushed that off and stocks found their footing to rally higher in early trading. At 2:30 pm the sellers stepped in to test the resolve and down we went with the S&P 500 index closing down 0.9% on the day. Why?

First, Bank of Japan surprise move relative to stimulus and interest rates sticking for now. The move by the BOJ caused a rally in the yen, devaluation of the dollar, a rise in oil prices and worries globally. Not bad for a meeting where news is not in alignment with expectations. Compared to the FOMC meeting in the US which turned out almost perfect with expectations and stocks rallied. All this validates is the uncertainty about the markets overall and the instability of a market driven by interest rates, stimulus and hope.

Second, technology (XLK) stared the day positive with earnings from Facebook leading the move. By mid morning that positive shifted to negative and the selling ensued dropping 1.2% on the day. The SOX fell 2.6%, networking (IGN) fell 1.2%, Cyber Security (HACK) fell 1.4%, Software fell 1.6% and Social Media (SOCL) rose 0.7% on the Facebook earnings. The challenge remains earnings and the outlook for growth moving forward. If technology is losing and money is rotating where does that leave the outlook near term? Questionable at best currently and watching to see how the sector unfolds near term and what the impact is overall to the broader markets. Support is $42.25 and the 200 DMA. A break lower is a negative sign for both the sector and the broader markets.

Third, commodities are running on inflation speculation, rotation of money and speculation in crude prices. As they say… ride the horse until it dies, then dismount. The belief is more important in this sector than the reality. Take what is working as the belief drives prices higher near term. Gold cleared the $1250 level breakout and continuation  upside today. Crude moved above $46. Gold miners spiked 4.5%. Silver followed the crowd gaining 2.4%. This is where the money flow is, but the risk is high from my view short term.

When it is all said and done on the day the sellers did something they have been unable to do… get control into the close. Tomorrow is a day of interest as it relates to the sellers. Do they follow through? Do they run? VIX jumped above 15 on the day and puts everyone on notice. 16.2 level of resistance up next. One day at a time for now as the resistance at the 2100 level for the S&P 500 index is keeping a lid on the upside for the index. NASDAQ 100 index broke support on downside and confirmed the move today. Exit points hit on the index and the downside pressure is building. Stay focused and be disciplined in protecting the downside risk.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

JFarrish April 26 (BONDS, GLOBAL DEBT, UPP, COMMODITIES, FOCM)

Investors looking for catalyst – Video Update Tonight

By April 26, 2016Jims Notes




Market hesitate as we await Apple earnings and the FOMC meeting conclusion tomorrow. 

This was a market of many different stories and none of them unto themselves carries enough clout to disrupt the current trend off the February lows. As I stated in the morning research notes, the sellers didn’t take advantage of the opportunity given to them on Monday. Today the buyers failed to take advantage of a positive momentum for stocks. This leaves us in exactly the same place we left off last night… looking for a catalyst in either direction based on the headlines. As stated above there are two such events in the making in the next twenty-four hours. Patience as this all unfolds.


Below is a video update to what is currently in play and what is worth putting on your watch list going forward. I covered S&P 500 index, NASDAQ 100 index, SOX, TLT, TYX, TNX, the dollar (UUP), commodities DBC, DBA, DBB and emerging markets EEM… Yes, it was a lot… that’s why 

I had to do the video too much to write!


Enjoy!



21st Century California Reverts Back to the Wild West - VDH

21st Century California Reverts Back to the Wild West

By Victor Davis Hanson // Works and Days by PJ Media
I grew up listening to stories of turn-of-the-century rural Central California from my grandfather Rees Alonzo Davis (1890-1976). He was the third generation of the Davis family to have lived in my present house—great nephew of Daniel Rhoades, who had walked into the High Sierra in early 1847 as part of a party sent to help save the Donner Party. Years later, after a small strike in the Mother Lode, Rhoades became a land baron near the shores of the now dry Tulare Lake, in modern-day Lemoore (where his strange mausoleum is currently a California historical site). He died, I think, when Rees was five or six, but his Rhoades portrait still hangs in my stairwell.
Much of my grandfather’s lectures concerned the law and his appreciative sense of progress. Without law in the wild days of his preteen years, sometimes farmers, he lamented, shot it out to adjudicate competing claims over water rights from a common ditch. He referenced a land of early epidemics; his daughter, my aunt, caught a summer polio virus in 1921, and lived most of her life in the living room of my house (d.1980), courageously struggling against a disease that had left her scarcely able to move.
My grandfather was born about 10 years after the Mussel Slough Tragedy (the inspiration for Frank Norris’ classic muckraking novel, The Octopus, which is about the tentacles of the Southern Pacific Railroad and its land grab from early settlers).
The Early 20th Century: Civilizing Fresno
As an aside, I had once reviewed in early 2006 a biography of Frank Norris for the New York Times (Frank Norris: A Life., by Joseph R. McElrath Jr. and Jesse S. Crisler), and remembered the authors’ description of the 32-year-old Norris’s acute appendicitis that led to rupture and death in 1902 in San Francisco. I recalled that passage in the biography during a trip later that year to Muammar Gaddafi’s newly opened Libya in 2006 to lecture on the antiquities; I had suffered from a chronic pain in my right abdomen for about a year (dismissed by doctors as another kidney stone). The appendix ruptured among, of all places, the ruins at Sabratha. And the symptoms seemed terrifyingly identical to what I remembered from the authors’ description of Norris’s, so I convinced my government “handlers” that I had a finite time to get back to Tripoli—finally arriving around midnight with severe peritonitis and in near shock. Hours later, we made it at last to a small Red Crescent Clinic. Hours after that, the staff found some ether, a government AIDS tester (required then before all surgeries), and mirabile dictu an Egyptian doctor in his pajamas and slippers who, about 48 hours after the rupture, saved my life.
Mussel Slough is about 15 miles from my house, and my grandfather often related the anger of early farmers at jacked-up freight charges, land confiscations, and double-dealing, in the agrarian and populist sense that there was no law other than what the “railroad men” said there was. His grandmother had bought our farm in the 1870s for $4 an acre, with the understanding that after a set number of years the railroad could buy it back if it were not (arbitrarily) judged to be developed. (I wondered, given the dislike of the railroad, why my grandfather mortgaged his farm in the 1930s and 1940s and sent his daughters to Stanford University for undergraduate and graduate degrees, given Leland Stanford’s rail riches. He later told me that “education” is a “life raft” for women.)
He talked fondly of the advancing civilization of the region, through landmark developments such as mosquito abatement districts, the systematic licensing of dogs and rabies vaccinations, the use of the Fresno scraper and concrete pipe to facilitate surface irrigation, and the formation of common irrigation districts run by the rule of law. He pointed to non-irrigated wild areas that were never farmed, to remind me what the land would look like without water and agrarians.
The law was in his view holy, and it was supported by an array of local community clubs and organizations—the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Masons, the Grange, the Farm Bureau, the Sun-Maid growers cooperative—that sought to encourage civic pride and progress through self-improvement. Government employees—the postman, the county librarian, the dog control officer, and the local constable—were few and revered as public stewards who sought out public service.
(Another aside: The once beautiful Temperance Union fountain at the edge of our city park was long ago torn down; in its place now rests a totem statue of the Aztec moon/fertility/agricultural goddess, Coatlicue [mother of Huitzilopochtli], with the inscription “Viva La Raza” [“Long live the Race”]. No comment on the comparative symbolism.)
All of these milestones of progress were juxtaposed in his recollections with commensurate improvements on the farm and in the house: the indoor toilet that stopped the use of privies and cut down on contagion; the introduction of electric pumps and pressure systems that allowed deeper wells and cleaner water, and ended reliance on windmills and stale taste of water stored up in the metal tanks in towers. Culture fought nature to a draw.
The theme of his some 86 years was the notion of progress — that a mostly uninhabited desert (the landscape of jackrabbits, rattlesnakes, tumbleweed, and Jimsonweed), through the marvels of irrigation, the growth of small agrarian towns, and the rule of and respect for statutes, had bloomed, with steady material and ethical progress, into what he told me was “heaven on earth.”
I was the beneficiary (born in 1953) of the work of past generations. In my early youth of the 1950s and 1960, I can’t recall that we locked the house or perhaps even had a house key. We still used a shared open telephone line (my great-grandfather had strung it up with redwood poles and vineyard 12 gauge wire on glass insulators). It was also certainly a multiracial and intermarried upbringing, as Portuguese, Armenian, Japanese, Mexican-American, and Punjabi farmers both collaborated and competed with one another on their 40-80 acre vineyard homesteads.
Sponsored
That entire world, of course, is gone, a victim of wealth, affluence, consolidation and corporatization of agriculture, globalization, high-tech appurtenances, the postmodern ethos that followed the 1960s, and massive influxes of illegal immigrants. What I regret most, however, is the disappearance of the rule of law. In some ways, we have returned to the pre-civilized days of the 19th century. When I walk or ride a bicycle in rural areas, I expect that the dogs that rush out from rented-out homes and trailers are neither licensed nor vaccinated—and that fact is of no concern to authorities.
I remember that as late as the 1970s a harsh building inspector used to drop in and snoop around to ensure Romex wire was insulated in conduits and that outbuildings were not on-the-sly rentals. In his defense, the county man was trying to systematize rural dwellings, so that future buyers did not purchase hidden fire-traps.
21st Century California Reverts Back to the Wild West
Today I generalize that about every old rural farmhouse in these environs can be characterized by three traits: a) the house is a rental and not connected with the corporate fields around it; b) there are two to three families, in illegal fashion, living in ramshackle trailers and sheds on the property; c) the authorities don’t dare enforce zoning or health laws, on the grounds that enforcement is a bad investment of their limited time and budget.
If I find a dead dog dumped on the alleyway (as I have three or four times over the last 12 months), with a rope around his neck and his insides exposed from dog fighting, I bury him and pass on calling the animal-control people. In fairness to them, what would they do, run an investigation into rural dog fighting—in a state in which felons are routinely released from prisons and jails, and sanctuary cities offer amnesties? I suppose a Queensland with his face ripped off is small potatoes. (Does multiculturalism trump the ASPCA or PETA?)
Nor do I ever contact the state EPA or the county when monthly I collect baby carriages, car seats, tires, used paint cans, old Christmas trees, mattresses, and dirty diapers dumped on the side of the road—despite occasional junk mail signifying the address of the polluter. About 50 pounds of coils of old worn-out drip hoses are out in front of my house today, a huge pile of plastic junk dumped as if my roadside was a free waste site. (Is the theory that my house qualifies for public service waste removal and thus someone poorer, in our spread-the-wealth society, has a right to dump his trash there?) How can such a green state that refuses to sell plastic bags at the coastal grocery markets prove indifferent to the spoliation of its rural hinterland?
The lawlessness is characterized by two facts: One, there are so many residing here illegally from Mexico and Central America that the system is overwhelmed; and, two, ideologically law enforcement has become a political, not a legal issue. As best as I can decipher, it works on the following principle. California has the highest bundle of gas, income, and sales taxes in the country, but borders on chronic insolvency. Social programs, subsidized health care, law enforcement, and crises in public education claim most of the budget, and the result is that the overtaxed state’s roads, reservoirs and once landmark water transfer systems are under-capitalized and dysfunctional. Various agencies operate on a fee basis — informally of course and denied vehemently when asked.
Take traffic tickets. A broken California a few years ago jacked up the fines as a way to raise revenue (the majority of residents do not pay income taxes; the top 1% pays half of all state income tax revenue: the best and worst place to be an income taxpayer). Yet those who are most likely to be punished for unsafe driving or defective vehicles are often precisely newcomers without capital, without legality, and without familiarity with U.S. driving laws, and who would not or could not pay their fines. Suspending licenses as a result of unpaid fees soon became a political issue, with all the hallmarks of the modern social state. As a result, for a while longer, you can have up to 80% of your fines reduced, but only if you make less than a state-specified income. The law assumes the following: A state or local official understands that if he were to pull over an illegal alien, for example, he would waste his agency’s precious time and money writing tickets that either would not be paid or would be amnestied. Far better to target a soccer mom, who most certainly will pay promptly and help to pay state employee salaries and pensions.
California is hyper-lawful and lawless, completely free and without freedom, a condition entirely predicated on one’s sense of income and dutifulness. If one picks and chooses legal compliance, claims grievance, and earns ideological sympathy on the basis of race and class, then the law is negotiable; otherwise, he is a ripe target for bureaucracies and agencies to monitor every aspect of his life—on the principle that because millions now do not pay traffic fines and income taxes, file proper and legal names, and obey bureaucratic summonses, a few thousands must to the nth degree.
We are back to the Wild West circa 1890; and all the iPhones, apps, and Teslas cannot change that fact. But with one key difference: In 1900, lawlessness in California was a result of the natural wild and the frontier; today it is a symptom of civilized wild and ideology. Historically, the latter is far more dangerous than the former.

You Need to Know About Tom Perez

You Need to Know About Tom Perez: Likely Hillary VP Opposes First Amendment


Could the next president of the United States be neither Clinton, Trump, Cruz, or Kasich ... but Thomas Perez?
It’s far more likely than you might think. Even before any candidate definitively secures either party’s presidential nomination, 2016 is looking more and more like 1912 all over again.
In that fateful year, Theodore Roosevelt -- after four years of bored retirement -- decided that he wanted to be president again. However, Roosevelt’s handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, refused to yield. Because of the split, even though the Democrats’ dour, arrogant Woodrow Wilson won fewer popular votes than perennial failed Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan did in 1908, Wilson won.
Roosevelt and Taft divided what would have been a comfortable winning tally for the Republicans. Today, the #NeverTrump and #OnlyTrump forces seem determined to replay that scenario.
SPONSORED
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, it could well be 1944 all over again.
That year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was virtually assured of victory over the strutting New York prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey. The real race was at the Democratic convention -- for vice president. Everyone knew FDR was gravely ill, and that the vice presidential nominee would likely become president sometime before the 1948 election.
Sitting Vice President Henry Wallace was ultimately cast aside in favor of Harry Truman, largely because Democratic Party leaders were alarmed at the prospect of a Communist sympathizer like Wallace becoming president. (How times have changed, at least in that respect.)
Hillary Clinton is 68, and beset by a persistent cough that she has never adequately explained. According to Ed Klein, author of Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary, she also suffers from “blinding headaches, exhaustion, insomnia, and a tremor in her hands. 

If Hillary goes unindicted (as seems likely, given that the Justice Department has been hiring based solely on left-leaning ideology) for her mishandling of classified material on her private email server, the deep split in the Republican Party makes it likely that she will be the next president.
Unless her health prevents her from remaining in office.
Given her apparent health issues (and the fact that her rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, is 74 years old), the Democrats’ choice for vice president could be their most important since 1944.
If Clinton became unable to serve prior the election, the obvious move for the Democrats would be to promote her vice presidential nominee to the presidential slot -- and it will not be Bernie. Hillary has not yet announced her choice, but one name that has been bruited about for months as one of her most likely running mates is Tom Perez, the secretary of Labor.
SPONSORED
The notion that Perez, or whomever the Democratic vice presidential nominee turns out to be, could become president of the United States on January 20, 2017 -- or sometime thereafter -- is not just a remote possibility.
Americans who value freedom should find the prospects of a Clinton and a Perez presidency equally chilling. Clinton and Perez have a shared distaste for freedom of speech: Hillary’s implicit but unmistakable opposition has been abundantly documented, whereas Perez’s distaste for the First Amendment seems even starker. In July 2012, Perez -- then the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ):
Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?
Perez could have simply answered yes, and maybe even cited the First Amendment. Instead, Perez refused to answer the question directly. Franks persisted, ultimately asking it four times.
Perez at one point responded that it was a “hard question.” He simply refused to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.
As it turned out, the DOJ didn’t need to -- due to Hillary Clinton’s advice. Clinton called for Americans to embrace “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
The mainstream media now marches in lockstep on this issue. Most Americans are too cowed to speak out against the advancing jihad and the accommodation of Sharia principles that are inimical to American freedoms, as they are afraid of being branded as “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes.” A Clinton-inspired culture of “peer pressure and shaming” is working beautifully to intimidate Americans. Many simply have adopted her values, now believing it’s morally unacceptable to oppose jihad terror and to speak honestly about its ideological wellsprings.
President Hillary Clinton -- or President Thomas Perez -- would only continue this trend, working to restrict the freedom of speech even further. Perhaps they would do away with their equivocating over the First Amendment and actually attempt to enshrine in law that disturbing yet increasingly popular slogan: “Hate speech is not free speech.”
The authority given the power to determine what constitutes hate speech would wield tyrannical control over the rest of us, able to work its will unopposed by criminalizing dissent.
The very real possibility that a new Democratic administration could enact hate speech laws that would effectively nullify the First Amendment, destroying the free society that the freedom of speech makes possible, makes the 2016 presidential election the most important of our age. And a terrible time for a split in the Republican ranks.