With the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee set to begin congressional insider trading hearings today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose husband trades stock options, has proposed a bill that would legalize, not ban, insider trading by members of Congress.

“This is just nuts,” says UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

The controversy surrounding Sen. Gillibrand’s version of the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act involves a curious omission of a conjunction that  CNBC.com editor John Carney calls “shocking” and a “scandal” because it would “gut the law” entirely.

In Sen. Scott Brown’s version of the bill, the law reads:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, by rule, prohibit any person from buying or selling the securities or security-based swaps of any issuer while such person is in possession of material nonpublic information relating to any pending or prospective legislative action relating to such issuer, if–

(A) such information was obtained by reason of such person being a Member or employee of Congress; or

(B) such information was obtained from a Member or employee of Congress, and such person knows that the information was so obtained.

Sen. Gillibrand’s version, however, contains a critical difference:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, by rule, prohibit any person from buying or selling the securities or security-based swaps of any issuer while such person is in possession of material nonpublic information relating to any pending or prospective legislative action relating to such issuer, if–

(A)(i) such information was obtained by reason of such person being a Member or employee of Congress; or

(ii) such information was obtained from a Member or employee of Congress, and such person knows that the information was so obtained;

(B) the person acted with the intent to assist another person, directly or indirectly, to use the information to enter into, or offer to buy or sell the securities of such publicly traded company based on such information.

As UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge notes, while the omission of the conjunction “And” between clause A and B appears to be a typo, Sen. Gillibrand’s insertion of clause B would mean that a member of Congress would be free to make stock trades using material, nonpublic information so long as they didn’t also help another person make a similar stock purchase.

(more…)

The Commerce Clause that regulates interstate commerce is at issue in the legal battle of Obamacare.  Can the federal government tell individuals that they must buy insurance?  Not as well known is how the same commerce clause is destroying farms and raising food prices by stopping the flow of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers to the Central Valley in California.      The feds at the urging of the state government has literally turned off the tap, destroying prime farmland in order to benefit the sex lives of the Delta Smelt.

Approximately 85-90% of the water from this primary source has been shut off to the Central Valley.   The smelt is a fish so insignificant that no one other than the Bezerkely-enviro-wackos and some local fisherman have heard about this tiny fish.

The smelt is fish that is native to California and, for the most part, is known to fisherman simply as “bait”.   The California enviros’ zeal to increase the population of smelt has led to a terrible federal, legal decision that shut down the water to thousands of farmers in the Central Valley; the nation’s largest and most productive farm land.    Thousands of farmers there are suffering with unemployment over 20%, scores of farms have been lost and tens of thousands of agricultural workers are now without jobs.   If California didn’t have enough economic problems, you can add shooting yourself in the foot.  The inmates are now officially running the asylum.   If we needed a poster for enviro-insanity it would be the promotion of the lowly smelt over the interests of: farmers, food production, food prices, jobs and California families.

(more…)

Abbot Justin Brown and his fellow monks are being threatened with crippling fines and even jail time.  Their crime?  Selling caskets.

Today, they are fighting back in a big way.

In 1889, a group of monks from Indiana fulfilled their dream of establishing a monastery in the Gulf South.  The monastic lifestyle they embody is simple and contemplative.  Their creation, the Saint Joseph Abbey, has had a powerful and positive impact in Louisiana.

For several centuries, monks have supported themselves financially by excelling at common trades such as farming and brewing beer.  The monks at Saint Joseph Abbey have been able to preserve and maintain their quiet lifestyle through farming and harvesting timber.

The monks make simple wooden caskets in which to bury themselves. In the early 1990s, Bishops began requesting the caskets, which led to inquiries from other interested people.  The demand continued to build:   People were eager to share in the monks’ view of the simplicity and unity of life and death through burial in a simple monastic casket.

As Abbot Justin Brown puts it:

The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey have been making caskets for over a hundred years.  People who ask for them want to share in that noble simplicity that our coffins express. We’re not a wealthy monastery and we need the income that Saint Joseph Woodworks could generate for the health care and the education of our own monks.

On November 1, 2007, the monks opened their Saint Joseph Woodworks.  But before they could sell even one casket, they were threatened with crippling fines, jail time and even a lawsuit.

Why?

(more…)

Congress wants the White House staff director involved in the now-infamous “gatecrasher” dinner to explain what happened. She won’t, because President Obama is invoking executive privilege. While there’s a decent claim for executive privilege here, Barack Obama’s hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

Most people have heard about the Virginia couple who apparently crashed the White House official dinner for the prime minister of India on Nov. 24. (It’s called an “official dinner” instead of a “state dinner” because the prime minister is not India’s head of state.) Congress has launched a probe and is demanding answers as to how uninvited people could end up shaking hands with the president of the United States and posing for photos with the VP and chief of staff.

One person Congress wants to speak with is Desiree Rogers, the White House Social Secretary. For dinners in previous administrations, the White House Social Office posted staffers at the entrance with a list of the invited guests to make sure fiascos like this can’t happen. Rogers, who holds her job because she’s an old buddy of First Lady Michelle Obama, evidently didn’t care enough to take this simple precaution.

But Congress won’t get the chance to ask Rogers, because President Obama is invoking executive privilege. That’s the legal doctrine for the president and certain executive-branch officials around him to refuse to testify in court or before Congress.

(more…)