NO STRINGS ATTACHED NEWS THAT MAINSTREAM JUST WON'T COVER.
A Texas high school football team is going viral after they were spotted walking onto the field at a recent game each carrying “Old Glory.”
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/texas-high-school-football-flags
Hunter 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 ballet 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 CrimeBlocking SWIFT Access Would Be "Declaration Of War": Russia Warns Against US 'Nuclear Option'
Last year during the height of controversy over the Kerch Strait incident, while two dozen Ukrainian sailors were still being held by Russia, Washington’s special envoy to Ukraine at the time, Kurt Volker, floated the possibility of Washington blocking Russian banks from SWIFT. He told Voice of America at the time that it was considered "a nuclear option" and it would have huge costs which would even inadvertently impact US allies. "People refer to it as a nuclear option. It would have costs for everybody involved," he said. "Big costs for Russia, but big costs for allies as well. Ultimately, we have to keep it on the table as a possibility because we just can't continue to see Russia launch further steps of aggression in its neighborhood like this."
No doubt it's still in Washington's playbook as a 'nuclear option' long after the Kerch Strait incident was diffused with an historic prisoner swap, and the Kremlin has taken note.
Russia's Central Bank, via Wiki Commons.
On Thursday Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev took Washington to task over the prior warning, telling reporters that Moscow is well aware of discussions to take sanctions further, even cutting off the country's access to some 11,000 banks and financial institutions in over 200 countries by blocking SWIFT. This is exactly what the Trump White House did vis-à-vis Iran months after it pulled out of the 2015 JCPOA.
Medvedev said such far-reaching action would be tantamount to a declaration of war. According to statements reported in Russian media:
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Medvedev recalled the West once seriously considered the option, and Moscow is aware of it.
“This would in fact be a declaration of war, but nevertheless it was discussed,” the Russian prime minister said, adding that this is one of the reasons why the government is looking into ways to protect the Russian part of the internet.
Though unlikely barring further major escalation between the US and Russia, the possibility is so much on the Kremlin's radar because it was also threatened in 2015 at the height of tensions over the war in eastern Ukraine.
At that time, citing threatened financial sanctions "from the West" — specifically impacting access to the prime global interbank system, Medvedev let it be known that Russia's response would be "without limits".
"We’ll watch developments and if such decisions are made, I want to note that our economic reaction and generally any other reaction will be without limits," he said in those prior comments. Indeed the unforeseen consequences of such a major global power (and energy provider to much of Europe and now even China) being suddenly isolated to that extent along with its fierce reaction, would likely create a global financial Armageddon and uncontrollable ripple effect.
Meanwhile Russia has over the past months flirted with the possibility of joining INSTEX — the special purpose vehicle set up by Europe to facilitate trade with Iran — and has thrown its political weight behind the project as it gains momentum with more EU countries joining in the past days.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:05 Tags PoliticsUS Regulators Warn Stablecoin Adoption Could Disrupt Economy, Financial Stability
Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,
A panel of senior financial regulators in the United States has warned the public about the purported risks of stablecoins and cryptocurrencies.
image courtesy of CoinTelegraph
A report issued on Dec. 4 by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) highlighted potential problems resulting from stablecoins gaining wider recognition.
The FSOC was set up in 2008 to combat risks to the financial sector after the financial crisis. The panel is headed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin. Its voting members include Jay Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as Heath Tarbert, who recently took over as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
FSOC: stablecoins “could affect wider economy”In its annual report for 2019, the regulators stated:
“If a stablecoin became widely adopted as a means of payment or store of value, disruptions to the stablecoin system could affect the wider economy. Financial regulators should review existing and planned digital asset arrangements and their risks, as appropriate.”
The FSOC additionally mentioned Bitcoin (BTC) and other cryptocurrencies as part of its coverage. It appeared unable to draw concrete conclusions about the phenomenon, acknowledging that trading data was “sparse and may be unreliable.”
The panel also expressed doubts over so-called distributed ledger technology (DLT) — a byword for digital currency projects notionally related to blockchain.
“The ultimate success of the technology, including applications in the financial sector, is not yet certain,” the report stated. The FSOC continued:
“Some early efforts have not resulted in the anticipated efficiency gains and other promised benefits, and as a result, have been scaled back, refocused, or abandoned.”
Cryptocurrency suspicions continueAs Cointelegraph reported, Mnuchin has been vocal as a critic of Bitcoin, alluding that the seminal cryptocurrency is likely a passing fad. In a July interview he said:
“I won’t be talking about Bitcoin in 10 years, I can assure you that […] I would bet even in 5 or 6 years I’m no longer talking about Bitcoin as Treasury Secretary. I’ll have other priorities […] I can assure you I will personally not be loaded up on Bitcoin.”
U.S. lawmakers continue to focus on the perceived risks stemming from the cryptocurrency sector, including associated schemes such as Facebook’s unlaunched Libra digital currency.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 11:50 Tags Business FinancePelosi Says House Will Draft Articles Of Impeachment Against "King" Trump
Update: In a meandering history lesson that sought to place the impeachment of President Trump in the same historical tradition as the overthrow of the divine right of kings, Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday morning that she is leaving it up to the Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment.
Pelosi warned that no one is above the law, and that the president's attempts to strongarm Ukraine in announcing an investigation into the Bidens left her "no choice" but to move ahead. So she ordered the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, to draft up the articles.
Notably, she didn't address the timing, leaving it unclear whether the impeachment vote would come before Christmas, or shortly after the new year. Earlier, Trump insisted that if the Dems are going to impeach, that they "do it now, fast" and get it over with.
*PELOSI SAYS TIME TO ADDRESS TRUMP'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE LAW
*PELOSI: IN AMERICA, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW
*PELOSI SAYS TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT
*PELOSI: TRUMP ACTIONS VIOLATED CONSTITUTION
*PELOSI SAYS TRUMP ENGAGING IN ABUSE OF POWER
*PELOSI DIDN'T ADDRESS TIMING OF IMPEACHMENT
Earlier, President Trump warned via tweet that an impeachment trial in the Senate will be an epic political circus, with Pelosi, Schiff and Biden all testifying if the president gets his way.
Trump wants live witnesses to defend him, and has said that he's resigned to impeachment.
The announcement comes one day after Republican witness Jonathan Turley warned that Dems are "rushing" the process.
In response to Pelosi's decision, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham warned that the Dems should be "ashamed" of their decision, and that the administration is looking forward to the Senate trial.
.@SpeakerPelosi & the Democrats should be ashamed. @realDonaldTrump has done nothing but lead our country - resulting in a booming economy, more jobs & a stronger military, to name just a few of his major accomplishments. 🇺🇸 We look forward to a fair trial in the Senate.
— Stephanie Grisham (@PressSec) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsMeanwhile, let's try not to lose sight of what Pelosi just did:
Nancy Pelosi just got up before the House and lied about the Judiciary hearings yesterday and then promoted the fully debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia and called for impeachment
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js* * *
Prompting speculation that she could be announcing a timeline for an impeachment vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning to deliver an update on the status of the impeachment inquiry Thursday morning at 9 am.
Pelosi will speak from the Speaker’s Balcony Hallway, the same spot from where she announced the launch of the impeachment probe back in September, roughly 71 days ago.
The statement comes as Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been asked to stay in Washington this weekend to "prep".
Even if she doesn't announce plans for an imminent impeachment vote, the speaker's remarks should at least help clarify the path forward, as Dems quietly debate whether to expand the scope of impeachment to go beyond the alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine.
On Wednesday, three Democratic witnesses made the case for Trump's impeachment, while a fourth Republican witness argued that the Dems' evidence falls well short of establishing a 'quid pro quo' between Trump and the Ukrainian government.
That the Dems are moving ahead shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone - after all, 16 Democratic members of the committee already voted to impeach Trump back in July.
Let's be clear: 16 Dems on the Judiciary Committee already voted to impeach the President back in July. Tomorrow’s hearing is an orchestrated scam against @realDonaldTrump with a pre-determined outcome. This has been their plan since Day 1. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) December 4, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsThe Speaker will deliver her weekly news conference later Thursday morning; she is also scheduled to appear during a CNN town hall Thursday evening.
Watch Live below:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcQhqcnao58]
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 11:49 Tags Politics
![[CB] Panic, EU & WTO Ruling, Trump Moves Forward Against The [CB] - Episode 2036a](https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/aDggfyENYqE/hqdefault.jpg)
