NO STRINGS ATTACHED NEWS THAT MAINSTREAM JUST WON'T COVER.
Countless police officers are getting away with accessing city, state, and federal databases for personal gain and sometimes criminal activity.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-stalk-database-no-charges/
"You're A Damn Liar": Biden Lashes Out At 'Fat' Voter Over Hunter-Burisma Question, Challenges To Push-Up Contest
Joe Biden lashed out at a voter during a Thursday event in New Hampton, Iowa, after the man suggested that his primary problems are that he's too old, and that he 'set his son up with a job in Ukraine.'
You 'sent your son over there, getting him a job to go work for a gas company that he had no experience in - nothing - in order to get access to the President."
WATCH: A tense exchange with a voter at @JoeBiden’s event in New Hampton, IA this morning, where a voter started out by telling Biden he had two problems with him: he was too old, and his son’s work in Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ok7m0ShFPd
— Molly Nagle (@MollyNagle3) December 5, 2019"You're a damn liar, man," Biden clapped back. "That's not true. And no one has ever said that."
"Look, the reason I'm running is because I've been around a long time and I know more than most people know. And I can get things done, that's why I'm running."
"And you wanna check my shape, let's do pushups together man, let's run, let's do whatever you want to do, let's take an IQ test."
"Number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not on any occasion, and no one has ever said it..."
To which the man replies, "I didn't say you were doin' anyting wrong."
"You said I set up my son to work at an oil company, isn't that what you said? Get your words straight, Jack."
(The man said it was a gas company).
"You don't have anymore backbone than Trump," the man retorts.
— Andy Swan 🦢 (@AndySwan) December 5, 2019https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsSome have noted that Biden appears to call the guy fat.
Biden to Iowa voter: "Look, fat, look, here's the deal..." pic.twitter.com/s3MLUiVo5t
— 🌃 (@codyave) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsDid Biden just call an Iowa voter fat?
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 13:35 Tags Human InterestBoeing's Letter To SEC Warns "Regulatory Delays" Could Cause It To "Halt" 737 Max Production
Shares of Boeing are mixed following a new report via Reuters detailing how the company sent a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicating how "significant additional regulatory requirements or delays" on the troubled 737 Max could cause it to slash or "temporarily halt production."
BOEING SAYS SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OR DELAYS ON 737 MAX RETURN TO SERVICE COULD CAUSE IT TO CUT OR TEMPORARILY HALT 737 MAX PRODUCTION - LETTER TO SECThe letter was first viewed by Reuters, which said Boeing doesn't "expect 737 MAX order cancellations due to the grounding of its best-selling single-aisle jet after deadly crashes to have a material impact on revenues or earnings because of the size of 737 order backlog and management's ability to mitigate potential impacts by shifting planned customer delivery dates."
BOEING SAYS DOES NOT EXPECT 737 MAX ORDER CANCELLATIONS DUE TO GROUNDING TO HAVE MATERIAL IMPACT ON REVENUES OR EARNINGS - LETTER TO SEC
BOEING SAYS DOES NOT EXPECT STORAGE CAPACITY TO LIMIT ABILITY TO CONTINUE 737 MAX PRODUCTION - LETTER TO SEC
And maybe the hype last month of the 737 Max potentially receiving a re-certification to return to the air via the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by January 2020 is fake news. It seems like the 737 Max grounding could extend well into 2020.
Boeing shares were dumped then pumped, then dumped again on the news.
Despite 346 people dead in two separate 737 Max crashes in the last 13 months, Boeing's stock continues to trade sideways.
Could Boeing be headed for disaster if 737 Max groundings persist well into 2020?
How TV Affects Traders
Authored by Bilal Hafeez via MacroHive.com,
You’d think traders are so focused on making money they pay little attention to TV. But that’s not the conclusion of Joel Peress and Daniel Schmidt in their recently published Journal of Finance paper, Glued to the TV: Distracted Noise Traders and Stock Market Liquidity. They find that sensational, non-market related news headlines distract amateur traders, and this ends up impacting the behaviour of small stocks.
The researchers collected data for retail traders from an online broker and for institutional investors from a transaction processing firm for the period 1964-2014. This allows them to capture the behaviour of 78,000 households and 835 asset managers for certain sub-periods within the sample. Otherwise, they use overall transaction data from the major US stock exchanges.
The critical news indicator they developed is based on what they call ‘news pressure’. This variable measures the median number of minutes that US news broadcasts devote to the first three news segments. They focus on only the top decile of news pressure, excluding news related to markets. They end up with 551 days of distraction events from 1968 to 2014 (Chart 1 below, or Figure 2, c.f. paper). Distracting events included:
The O. J. Simpson trial verdict
The Cessna plane crashing on the White House lawn
The Challenger space shuttle explosion
Terrorist attacks (Lockerbie plane bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, London bombing)
11 assassination attempts (on President Reagan, on Pope John Paul II)
Shootings (Littleton school shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, Tucson shooting)
Celebrity deaths (Lady Diana, Michael Jackson)
Chart 1: Daily News Pressure and Distraction Events
Source: Glued to the TV: Distracted Noise Traders and Stock Market Liquidity, Page 41.
How Distracted Do Retail and Institutional Traders on Big News Days?Generally, retail traders get distracted by the news and trade less (i.e. trading volumes fall). Institutional investors are also affected but to a lesser degree. The strongest reaction was found, though, for biased investors – whether retail or institutional.
Biased investors were defined as ones that are typically overconfident, over-traded, and typically loss-making. Such investors would most easily get distracted by sensational news and reduce their trading activity. Ironically, by trading less they often lost less money.
Does Distraction News Affect Market Returns?For the overall market, Peress and Schmidt find that distraction days do not affect returns. However, when stocks are broken down by retail ownership, they found that the turnover for more retail-owned stocks was statistically affected: volumes fell by around 2.4%. They proxied retail ownership by looking at the market cap and institutional ownership of stocks. Lower values for both would suggest more retail ownership. That is, the effects are more pronounced for small stocks.
They also found that volatility for such stocks fell on distraction days, there were less price reversals, and liquidity (bid-offer) worsened in the stocks.
Has the Effect Changed Over Time?They split the sample into three periods: 1968-1992, 1993-2006, and 2007-2014. The first period corresponds to more ‘traditional’ phone-based markets, the second to the rise of the internet, and the third to the rise of algorithmic trading.
The most striking result is that the negative impact of distraction news days on small stocks has become more pronounced in terms of turnover and price range (Chart 2). The one change, though, is that in the most recent period, market liquidity has not worsened. This is perhaps due to the efficiency of algorithmic trading.
Chart 2: Impact of Distraction News Days on Small Stocks
That sensational news distracts the less professional traders is an important finding; that this ‘distraction’ impacts the behaviour of small stocks is significant, too. The question is, can we use this insight to develop a trading strategy? No one’s saying we can predict sensational news headlines, but once they occur we might expect lower volatility in small stocks on that day. If the effect persists over the day, rather than lasting just the first few minutes, then a plausible move could be to sell volatility.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 13:05 Tags Business FinanceHunter Biden Ordered To Produce Five Years Of Financial Records; Baby-Mama Must Disclose Stripper Tips
Hunter Biden has been ordered by an Arkansas judge to produce five years of financial records in his paternity case - a period which includes the majority of his time on the board of Ukrainian gas giant Burisma, which paid Biden's firm over $80,000 per month.
Hunter's baby-mama, stripper Lunden Roberts, will also have to disclose how much she made in tips at a DC strip club where the two met, according to the Daily Mail - reporting on location in Batesville, Arkansas.
Originally Judge Don McSpadden, who is presiding over the court in Batesville, Arkansas, had only asked for three years' records.
But now he says he needs five years of records before making a decision on how much the former vice-president's son should pay to support his child.
On Tuesday, McSpadden sent out a blunt letter to attorneys in the case — including the one that Biden fired minutes before a hearing on Monday. -Daily Mail
Roberts is asking for $11,000 in legal fees as well as child support for their child - who she has argued qualifies for Secret Service protection as the grandchild of former Vice President and 2020 candidate Joe Biden.
"Baby Doe's paternal grandfather, Joe Biden, is seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America. He is considered by some to be the person most likely to win his party's nomination and challenge President Trump on the ballot in 2020," reads a filing by Roberts. "The members of the Biden family either are protected or eligible to be protected by the United States Secret Service as a direct result of Joe Biden's political status."
"Baby Doe's paternity could put the child and those close to the child at risk of harm for the same reasons the Biden family is protected by the United States Secret Service."
The 49-year-old Biden and 28-year-old Roberts were given 10 days to produce their financial records, though they will be sealed from the public.
Roberts, a resident of Southside, Arkansas, has already provided one set of records, but Judge McSpadden says he wants more.
"I have viewed Ms Roberts affidavit of financial means online and saw that she is employed at a family business probably for a salary of less than minimum wage," he wrote. "Therefore for now I want the affidavit of financial means and supporting documents to cover the last five years. This would include monies received from any source for both parties whether it be support of any kind, gifts or salary, which would include bonuses, tips or gratuities."
The court in Batesville, Arkansas, is expected to decide all matters in the case at the next hearing, expected for January 7, McSpadden told Roberts's lawyer Clint Lancaster and former Arkansas attorney general Dustin McDaniel, who had been representing Biden.
The judge made it clear he wants the case over quickly. 'I do not want to have this [drag] out nor do I want to have to drag out the monies these individuals may have received in any form or fashion.
'I anticipate paternity as well as custody, support and visitation being established at our next hearing,' he wrote.
He added: 'I will do what I believe is in the best interest of the child.' The sex of the child has not been released.
'This matter has been filed in this court. Again, my major and main if not only concern is this child,' McSpadden added. 'Issues are no longer up to the parties.
'I am going to treat this case like any other paternity case that comes before the court. Hopefully the parties will see fit to look out for the interest of this child.' -Daily Mail
Biden's appointment to the board of Burisma while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy for the Obama administration is at the heart of current impeachment proceedings against President Trump - who has been accused of interfering in the upcoming election for asking Ukraine to investigate the matter.
The Washington Post's Double Standard On Immigration And Guns
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
Last week, the Washington Post's editorial board came out against sanctuary cities. No, not the kind of sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law. The Post's editors have no problem with that. Instead, the Post came out against the efforts by some local governments to oppose state- and federal-level enforcement of restrictions on gun ownership.
The Post didn't go easy on these efforts either. The editorial likened the gun-owner sanctuary efforts to "vigilantism" and "frontier justice," with the obvious implication being these people are one step away from organizing lynch mobs. Moreover, we're told the movement is "nonsense fanned by mischief-makers with an agenda," and will lead to "chaos."
Recognizing the obvious double standard the Post is proposing for immigrant sanctuaries and gun-owner sanctuaries, the authors try to explain it all away:
The distinction between the two sanctuaries is basic. Localities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions are threatening to ignore laws enacted by duly elected state legislatures and signed by governors. Immigration-focused sanctuary localities are breaking no law; rather, they are refusing purely voluntary cooperation in service to federal law enforcement.
It's pretty hard to split this hair any finer. The Post's distinction here seems to be that local nullification of federal law is acceptable, but local nullification of state law is not.
Of course, whether or not local governments are breaking a law depends on each state's constitution and the nature of "home rule" in each state. Indeed, in California, Judge James Crandall, appointed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, ruled against California's law mandating local enforcement of immigration law. Crandall argued the law was "an unconstitutional invasion into the rights of the city." He also said "the operation of a police department and its jail is a city affair. For the state to say one size fits all for policing isn’t going to fit everybody." This state law was enacted — to use the words of the Post editors — "by duly elected state legislatures."
Does the Post agree or disagree with the judge's logic? If the Post's editors disagree, then on what grounds to they justify support for local governments that ignore state laws mandating compliance with immigration enforcement? If the editors agree with the ruling, then on what grounds do they deny a local government's freedom to enforce gun laws as they wish?
Several states, including Florida, have adopted laws that prohibit sanctuary cities. According to this source, at least one local government in Florida has declared itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Shall we expect an editorial from the Post denouncing this flouting of state laws? That seems unlikely.
Moreover, since the Post is now coming out in favor of state and local indifference toward federal law, will the Post's editors be throwing their support behind state-level efforts to nullify federal Obamacare laws or federal gun laws?
Obviously, that's not going to happen, and we should not expect any consistency on this from the Post. To anyone who is paying attention, it is clear the Post truly has a double standard here, and has been casting about for ways to justify support for one type of local nullification, while opposing a different kind.
What the Post should have done was just come out and state what is likely the editorial board's real position: namely that restrictions on gun ownership are good, and restrictions on immigration are bad.
The conclusion: it is moral to ignore laws restricting immigration. But it is immoral to ignore laws restricting gun ownership.
Although this position on guns is certainly wrong, the Post's editors could at least have been respected for saying what they really meant. Instead, they fall back on a disingenuous claim that they support the law, and that anything else is "chaos."
This ersatz conservatism was no doubt an attempt to appeal to people who fancy themselves as "reasonable" or "moderate." Indeed many of these sorts of people continue to support the War on Drugs with nonsense about how we're all obliged to follow clearly unconstitutional federal drug laws until those laws are changed. Nonetheless, the Post's approach is inherently dishonest and double-dealing.
A truly consistent position is to let states and locals decide for themselves on all of these issues.
In a 2017 column for mises.org, I said exactly this:
If California establishes — yet again — that states can ignore and even inhibit federal arrests and prosecutions in the states, then it becomes all the easier for other states to refuse to enforce federal gun laws, federal drug laws, Obamacare, or federal mandates that states provide welfare programs and "free" taxpayer-funded services to non-citizens.
The only tool the federal government should have in these cases is to cut off funding. This is a very powerful tool, mind you, but it is also hardly a given that every state would face disaster if facing a cut in federal spending. Nor is this a one-way street. for political reasons, the federal government wants to spend money in the states just as much as the states want to receive it.
So, let's make every state a sanctuary from federal gun laws, federal immigration law, federal drug laws, federal election laws, and more.
We should take this even further, of course, and support broad "home rule" powers for individual cities and counties, so they can decide for themselves what state laws to enforce, and which to nullify. Only by decentralizing and localizing political power can we hope to have laws that actually reflect to a reasonable extent the values of the local population. Radical decentralization also makes it easier for those who disagree with these policies to escape them through physical relocation. The alternative is more of what we already have: both state and federal governments impose the will of the majority in the legislature on the minority. Often, this is a near fifty-fifty split, yet we're suppose to believe, for example, that all 39 million Californians in a place larger than Britain are obliged to follow state laws because, say, 51 percent of the population supports those policies. And if you're in the minority? Tough luck, forever. Oh, and you'll have to move hundreds of miles away to live under different laws.
If the Post really supported democracy, it would want more of it. That is, it would want more legislative bodies — whether city councils, county commissions or state legislatures — to decide matters for themselves. And that includes laws covering guns.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:25 Tags Social Issues Law Crime
![[CB] Panic, EU & WTO Ruling, Trump Moves Forward Against The [CB] - Episode 2036a](https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/aDggfyENYqE/hqdefault.jpg)
