If you were looking for Teletech Service Company, Click Here.
President Obama’s financial reform bill may have passed on July 15 with the support of three Republican senators, including newly elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, but the "Volcker rule" seems to have been a casualty. As negotiations over financial reform legislation proceeded in Congress, a major point of contention emerged — the so-called Volcker rule, the New Yorker magazine reports in a feature story by writer John Cassidy. Named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, now an economics adviser to the Barack Obama administration, the Volcker rule restricted banks from engaging in risky investments like derivatives, private-equity funds, and hedge funds. But by the time reform legislation was passed, provisions implementing the Volcker rule had been significantly watered down — thanks in part to the Obama administration’s softening of support. The Volcker rule barred banks from speculating in the markets — proprietary trading — and from operating and investing in high-risk and highly illiquid investments. Volcker believed the provisions would help restore the legal divide between commercial banks, which issue credit to households and companies, and investment banks, which issue and trade securities. That split had ended with legislation passed in 1999. When President Obama in January spoke at the White House to urge Congress to enact reform — with Volcker at his side — he called for “a simple and common-sense reform, which we’re calling the Volcker rule,” Cassidy notes. The financial industry lobbied to weaken the Volcker rule, and the Democratic leadership began to compromise to secure the vote of Sen. Brown, who sought changes to please large financial firms, some of which are based in Massachusetts. One new provision allowed banks to invest up to 3 percent of their capital in hedge funds or private-equity funds. Volcker expressed disappointment in the compromise, telling Cassidy: “We could have done better . . . I’m a little pained that it doesn’t have the purity I was searching for.” The strict version of the Volcker rule was removed from reform legislation before it was passed by the Senate. Some Democrats blamed Republicans who wanted to protect big banks. But Volcker “also suspected that some administration officials were willing to make too many concessions to Wall Street, including on the Volcker rule,” Cassidy wrote. The administration was determined to see the legislation headed for passage before Obama attended a G-20 meeting in Toronto on the weekend of June 26. The House and Senate reached a final compromise on the bill on June 25. “I think they had priorities that were a little different from mine,” Volcker told Cassidy afterward. “The president wanted a bill. He was going to Toronto. Everybody wanted a bill. It comes down to a squeeze play, and the 60th vote, or the person who’s perceived as the 60th vote, he’s got an awful lot of leverage.”  Explaining his opposition to the construction of a mosque near New York’s ground zero, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich “dramatically refocuses” understanding of the threat posed by radical Islamism. That’s the view expressed by Andy McCarthy, author of the new book “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” in an article for National Review Online. The threat posed by Islamism “is not just about terrorism — that's just a small part of the offensive,” McCarthy writes, summarizing Gingrich’s assertions. “We are confronted by a mainstream movement that seeks gradually to infuse sharia, Islam's legal and political framework, into our legal, political, financial, economic, and educational systems — and throughout our culture.” In an essay for Human Events, Gingrich observes: “One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks ‘the war on terror’ instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. “Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths. “For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice. “Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods — a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term ‘war on terrorism’ is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.” Gingrich’s essay goes on to describe the troubling advance of the sharia agenda in the United States, and why a true understanding of the ultimate goals of Islamists should shape opposition to the proposed mosque in Manhattan. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque proposal, “is an apologist for sharia supremacy,” Gingrich notes, and in a recent Op-Ed he actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. “This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism,” Gingrich writes. “We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.” Add NPR to the list of media outlets vying for the front-row White House briefing room seat vacated by the resignation of longtime correspondent Helen Thomas last month. As the Insider Report disclosed earlier, Fox News and Bloomberg News are both seeking the coveted seat. Now NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney has sent a letter to the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), which determines seating in the briefing room, emphasizing NPR’s “audience size, national and international reach, presence at the daily briefings, regular service in the radio-pool rotation and on White House travel both domestic and foreign” as factors demonstrating the radio network’s “place among the premier news organizations covering the White House,” Yahoo! News reports. He also noted that NPR — formerly National Public Radio — has had a full-time White House correspondent since the 1970s, before the launch of both Fox News and Bloomberg News. Fox News and Bloomberg News previously sent letters to the WHCA making their case for taking over Thomas’s seat. A decision is expected on Aug. 2, according to Yahoo! News. Thomas, who had covered presidents since 1960, retired on June 7 following anti-Israel remarks that were denounced by the White House and her press corps colleagues. Many pundits and observers have argued that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could actually play into the hands of the hardcore Iranian regime by destroying the pro-democracy movement that threatens it. That’s one of the possible negative repercussions of an Israeli strike on the autocratic regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Those observers believe an Israeli strike “could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change,” former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in The Weekly Standard. “This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it.” Gerecht for one does not agree with that view, writing that an Israeli strike is more likely to “shake” the regime. “If anything can jolt the pro-democracy movement forward, contrary to the now passionately accepted conventional wisdom, an Israeli strike against the nuclear sites is it.” Gerecht does acknowledge, however, that the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime is becoming increasingly fragile, facing opposition not only from the democracy movement but also from senior members of Iran’s clergy who are appalled by Khamenei’s abuses — including the use of rape to “pacify the political opposition.” The regime “lives in fear of a ‘velvet revolution,’” according to Gerecht, and Khamenei’s decision to throw the disputed June 2009 election to Ahmadinejad has “compromised all future elections. He has permanently destabilized the country . . . We have a supreme leader whom millions loathe and even more distrust.” So those who maintain that a strike by Israel would strengthen the regime’s grip on power, Gerecht states, believe that “America’s pre-eminent job should therefore be to calm the Israelis down — or, failing that, arm-twist them into inaction.” Talk about separating church and state — a small-town schoolteacher was threatened with arrest for praying on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building. According to Nathan Kellum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, teacher Maureen Rigo and her class from Wickenburg Christian Academy in Wickenburg, Ariz., visited the Supreme Court in May. While standing on the court steps, the group began to pray quietly. A Supreme Court police officer interrupted them, told the group they could not pray there, and guided them toward the street. When Rigo later contacted the Supreme Court headquarters, a sergeant said her actions were “definitely contrary to the law,” and added: “The police officer acted correctly, forcing you to leave under threat of arrest because you violated federal statute.” An official statement issued by a court spokeswoman said that groups engaged in activities that may draw onlookers are illegal. But Patricia McCabe Estrada, deputy public information officer for the court, told CNSNews.com: “The Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer.” Kellum told CNSNews that while the law’s intent appears to be focused on protests at the court building, the application of the law could be seen as banning public prayer. The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to court officials asking for assurances that Rigo and her students will be permitted to pray on court grounds during their next visit. Said Kellum: “Evidently, people may engage in all sorts of conversational expression on Supreme Court grounds — unless that expression happens to involve prayer.” The Government Accounting Office has uncovered massive fraud in a federal program designed to help low-income Americans pay for heating and air conditioning — including payments to 725 imprisoned convicts. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program serves 8.3 million U.S. households. But the GAO found that the program paid $116 million to applicants who used 11,000 dead people’s Social Security numbers, as well as to the convicts and to 1,100 well-paid government workers who were not eligible for benefits. In addition, $3.9 million in subsidies were paid on applications submitted after the applicant had died, and about 260,000 persons receiving benefits had submitted invalid identity information, such as blank Social Security numbers or dates of birth, “making it impossible to determine whether these cases involve fraud,” the GAO report stated. But the overall level of fraud is likely to be far higher than what the GAO uncovered, since the agency’s audit covered only seven states — and found fraud in each. “The total dollar amount for all 50 states would be monumental,” the Orange County, California Register noted in an editorial. Among the government workers receiving benefits was a Chicago-area employee who earned $80,000 a year, yet pocketed $840 in assistance. “The GAO said that to cut down on fraud, the government needs to be more certain of applicants’ eligibility,” the Register observed. “We say that to eliminate fraud, the government needs to get out of the business of redistributing taxpayers’ money.” Britain has a new government with David Cameron as prime minister, but one thing has not changed — conservative American radio host Michael Savage is still banned from entering the country. Back on May 5, 2009, the so-called “shock jock” host of “Savage Nation” was included on a list of “undesirables” by then British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. The list included Islamist extremists, Russian gang members, neo-Nazis, and American anti-gay preachers. Savage at the time called Smith a “lunatic,” but she defended her decision, saying Savage was a man of extreme views who expressed them “in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence.” Now Prime Minister Cameron has informed Savage that his name will remain on the banned list unless he “repudiates” unspecified broadcast statements that Britain “deemed a threat to public security,” the Washington Times reported. Savage told the Times: “I had hopes but did not expect this ‘new’ U.K. government to restore sanity to Britain. They are still pandering to the Muslim masses. “To continue to martyr me by including me on a list of known murderers and terrorists is bad enough, but for the U.S. and Western media, which considers itself ‘progressive,’ to continue to ignore this outrage against freedom of speech is indicative that the media and governments are one and the same.” Savage’s book “Banned in Britain: Beating the Liberal Blacklist,” published late last year, maintains that his name was included among the “undesirables” to “balance” the list, which was composed mostly of Muslims. Over a recent 12-year period, the U.S. allowed 1.8 million aliens — many of them in the country illegally — to remain free pending their scheduled court hearing, and 736,000 of them never showed up in court. The evasion of court dates by illegal aliens skyrocketed after 2001 — from 2002 to 2006, more than half of all aliens summoned to court simply disappeared. “We all know how bad the federal government is at controlling our border, but we face the same problem in the system set up to handle immigration cases,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Illegal aliens who are apprehended are ordered to appear before immigration courts that are part of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). And the EOIR masks the problem of no-shows by manipulating the numbers, according to von Spakovsky, who cites former immigration judge Mark Metcalf’s recent testimony before a House subcommittee. In 2005 and 2006, for example, EOIR told Congress that the “overall failure” rate of aliens to appear in court was 39 percent, when in fact it was 59 percent. EOIR came up with the lower figure by combining the appearance rates for aliens who were free with those who were in jail and had no choice but to appear in court. The overwhelming majority of aliens who lost their cases “just walk away and disappear,” von Spakovsky writes under the headline “A Broken Immigration Court System.” In 2008, 558,000 deportation orders remained unenforced, and of those ordered deported, 45,000 were illegal aliens from countries that the Department of Homeland Security says abet terrorism. A major reason for the failure to carry through on deportation orders is the fact that immigration judges lack the ability to enforce their orders. That is left to Homeland Security, which has a “lackadaisical attitude” toward enforcement, according to von Spakovsky, who declares: “I can’t think of any word more appropriate to describe this situation than appalling.” Democrats’ exclusion of the National Rifle Association from The Disclose Act reining in political spending by corporations shows that the bill is in fact a scheme to aid Democrats in the midterm elections, according to a member of the NRA’s board of directors. The “cynical” decision by House Democrats “to exempt the NRA from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure,” board member Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firm Foley & Lardner specializing in campaign finance law, wrote in an opinion piece for the Washington Post. “It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act — namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.” The Disclose Act is a response to a Supreme Court decision that came down in January allowing corporations to sponsor election-related ads. The bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to disclose their top five donors if they participate in political activity, and to agree to other disclosures related to expenditures before elections. The NRA objected to the bill, and some Democrats were wary of crossing the powerful organization by trying to limit its campaign ads. So supporters of the legislation added language sparing from disclosure any organization that has more than 1 million members, has members in all 50 states, and relies on corporations for 15 percent or less of its contributions — which effectively exempted the NRA. In a later version of the bill, any organization with more than 500,000 members would be exempt. “The NRA’s wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption,” Mitchell wrote. “Tea party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but no formal dues structure? Forget it.” She also noted that while the bill technically requires unions as well as corporations to report donors of more than $600 a year, most union members’ dues add up to less than $600 a year and “thus members’ contributions to labor campaign-related spending wouldn’t need to be disclosed.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had scheduled a vote on the bill for Friday, June 18, but they decided to pull the bill the night before after gun control advocates pledged to oppose it unless the NRA exemption was removed. The NRA for its part said its position on the bill had been “misstated” by some and “intentionally misrepresented” by others. A June 21 statement from Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, declared: “The NRA has never supported — nor would we ever support — any version of this bill.” However, he sought to provide the “proper context” for the NRA’s position. “We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That’s easy to say — unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.” Mitchell, who has served as legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, believes the bill should be abandoned permanently. “The Disclose Act isn’t really intended to elicit information not currently required by law,” she observed. “The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association. “This is not ‘disclosure.’ It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.” A dozen Republican senators have sent a letter challenging the Obama administration to explain what it knows about Venezuela’s support for terrorism and suggesting that the country be declared a “state sponsor of terrorism.” “Hugo Chavez’s relationships with Iran and other foreign terrorist organizations continue to grow and pose a serious threat to our hemisphere,” Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, one signer of the letter, said of the Venezuelan president. “I encourage the State Department to thoroughly evaluate Venezuela’s actions and determine if the country needs to be added to the official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.” John Ensign of Nevada, who drafted the letter along with LeMieux, declared: “It’s no secret to the American people that Venezuela wishes harm to the United States. What is secret is how many more ties to terrorist organizations and state sponsors of terrorism does Venezuela need to be declared a state sponsor of terrorism.” The letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points to a number of concerns raised by Chavez’s Venezuela:
Newsmax magazine’s May issue disclosed that Iranian security officers seal off the airport in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, two hours before Iran Air jets arrived. Those officers supervise cargo unloading with no inspection by local officials. Iran could easily fly in highly enriched uranium that could then be carried into the U.S. from Mexico, increasing the risk of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. If the U.S. did declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, American arms sales to the country would be prohibited, as would U.S. economic assistance, and severe restrictions would be placed on bilateral trade. “The Obama administration’s decision to pull the trigger on Venezuela may hinge on whether the United States can afford to forfeit petroleum exports from that South American country,” Roger F. Noriega, a former assistant secretary of state and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, observes on the Institute’s journal, The American. “Anticipating the argument that Venezuela’s oil supply is too essential to the U.S. economy to risk slapping that country with the terrorist label, the senators ask the administration to explain its ‘contingency plan’ for dealing with a ‘sudden and prolonged unavailability of Venezuelan oil exports to the United States.’” In answer to the question, the U.S. would likely find new sources of oil on the international market — but Venezuela’s economy will be crippled by the loss of oil revenue and consumer imports, Noriega notes, adding: “Since the last years of the George W. Bush administration, U.S. diplomats have steered clear of Chavez for fear of ‘provoking’ him. Thanks to congressional oversight, we are about to confront the terrible downside of that naïve, passive policy.” Other senators who signed the letter include John McCain of Arizona, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell charges that the energy company BP helped craft the cap-and-trade bill proposed by Democratic Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. “The problem for Democrats is that debating the Democrat cap-and-trade bill might not fit neatly into the White House messaging plan since it’s been widely reported that a major part, a major part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was essentially written by BP,” the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate floor on Wednesday, referring to the company responsible for the massive and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “Let me say that again. A major part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was written by BP. This is clearly an inconvenient fact,” McConnell emphasized. Congress is debating a compromise global warming bill — a watered-down version of earlier climate change bills — introduced in May by Kerry and Lieberman after the oil rig explosion in April. It would tax businesses for carbon emissions and raise the cost of fuel for American consumers, CNS News reports. McConnell also charged that Democrats are trying to “piggy-back” the climate change legislation into a bill under consideration to deal with future oil spills. “An administration that seems to spend most of its time coming up with new ways to show how angry it is at BP is pushing a proposal that BP actually helped write,” said McConnell. “I can’t understand it, and I don’t think the American people will understand why it makes sense to respond to the BP oil spill by imposing a gas-tax increase on the American people that was advocated by BP.” When asked by CNS News about McConnell’s assertion that a major part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was essentially written by BP, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “I believe that’s true.” Stepped-up enforcement against illegal immigration will not stem the flow of undocumented aliens, but four other policies can succeed, according to a new report. “Arizona's new immigration policy, which requires aliens to carry immigration papers and directs the police to detain ‘suspected aliens,’ has re-ignited debates over how to reduce illegal immigration,” writes Jeffrey A. Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. “Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.” Miron’s views on border control clash with the opinion of many activists, who say the only way to begin controlling illegal immigration is to seal off the Mexican border. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday told President Obama that Americans “want our border secured” and called for completion of the border fence. Obama for his part said most of the 1,200 National Guard troops he is sending to the Mexican border would go to Arizona. In Miron’s report, which appeared on the cato.org website and on The Daily Caller site, he opined that tightening control of the border won’t be productive and outlined his four strategies: America has a problem with illegal immigration because it restricts legal immigration. But large wage differences between the U.S. and many other countries, especially in Latin America, will continue to encourage migration to this country. Legal immigration is good for the U.S., bringing in new ideas and energy from people in poorer countries, while restrictions on illegal immigration are costly and lead to black markets, violence and corruption. That would shift the demand for low-skill labor from the U.S. to poorer countries, where wages would increase, and reduce the incentive to immigrate. Violence resulting from the war against drugs motivates residents of Latin American countries to immigrate to America in part to escape the violence. A major reduction in enforcement would significantly reduce the violence. Most illegal immigrants come to the U.S. seeking work. But if legal immigration was increased, “large-scale migration in response to generous benefits would plausibly increase,” states Miron, who concludes: “Stepped-up enforcement [against illegal immigration] will drive more activity underground, generate more violence along the border, impose costs on law-abiding employers, and embitter residents of poor countries toward the United States. Ramped up enforcement is a feel-good gimmick that allows politicians to claim they have done something about illegal immigration, even though they know the reality is different.”  Newsmax Snippets |