“Their Careers Are Over”: Cornell Student Reps Targeted For Opposing Efforts To Defund/Disarm Campus Cops

“Their Careers Are Over”: Cornell Student Reps Targeted For Opposing Efforts To Defund/Disarm Campus Cops

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing student editors and student government leaders using their positions to retaliate against the exercise of free speech by other students with the support of faculty. This trend is hardly surprising as journalism deans call for censorship and journalism professors call for the rejection of neutrality in the media. Universities have generally remained passive as students and faculty harass and punish those with opposing views.  The latest such example was detailed in a column on the site College Fix on how students at Cornell University moved to oust student representatives who voted against disarming and defunding campus police.

According to the report, students failed to pass a resolution calling for the defunding and disarming of the Cornell Police Department. After the measure failed, student leaders called for the removal of opposing leaders from committees or the student government as a whole.

Uchenna Chukwukere, the Student Assembly vice president of finance declared

“These 15 student assembly members watched us pour out our traumas and fears on the floor practically begging them to vote no, and finally send a message to the university that we can no longer allow these oppressive institutions to keep us down. Many of these assembly members are white-cis-het men and women who quite literally laughed and danced in our faces when the resolution failed…Their faces are all over social media…We will never forget… their campus careers are over… We must disarm, defund, and disband the Cornell University Police Department.”

Eventually, after a series of failed votes, the student organizers were able to pass Resolution 30, calling to disarm campus police by two votes.

Student Dakota Johnson, a Marine veteran, recounted a confrontation with a government leader where he was allegedly told that:

“As a white man, you cannot be the arbiter of what is and isn’t racist and who is a good or bad person. … You will never be the arbiter because you are a white man.”

The question is the responsibility of universities when students use their positions to deny the free speech of other students or punish those who hold opposing views. There has been a conspicuous silence from faculty ad administrators as both free speech and academic freedom has been attacked in recent years. It is a disgraceful failure to protect the foundational values for academia. Many are afraid of being the next to be targeted by campaigns like those directed against the students at Cornell.  This silence has continued even as faculty are hounded for their views or writings.  We have been discussing these cases across the country including a similar effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as an effort at Harvard targeting a leading academic.  It is part of a wave of intolerance sweeping over our colleges and our newsrooms — a campaign that will devour its own in the loss of academic freedoms and free speech.

Even if we will not protect our colleagues, we have a duty to protect the students who come to our campuses to learn and develop their own views and values. That includes protecting them from being formally punished or ousted for their viewpoints. If we do not fight for them and their rights, we have become entirely untethered from any principle other than our personal advancement and safety.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 18:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3psetVI Tyler Durden

“Their Careers Are Over”: Cornell Student Reps Targeted For Opposing Efforts To Defund/Disarm Campus Cops

“Their Careers Are Over”: Cornell Student Reps Targeted For Opposing Efforts To Defund/Disarm Campus Cops

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing student editors and student government leaders using their positions to retaliate against the exercise of free speech by other students with the support of faculty. This trend is hardly surprising as journalism deans call for censorship and journalism professors call for the rejection of neutrality in the media. Universities have generally remained passive as students and faculty harass and punish those with opposing views.  The latest such example was detailed in a column on the site College Fix on how students at Cornell University moved to oust student representatives who voted against disarming and defunding campus police.

According to the report, students failed to pass a resolution calling for the defunding and disarming of the Cornell Police Department. After the measure failed, student leaders called for the removal of opposing leaders from committees or the student government as a whole.

Uchenna Chukwukere, the Student Assembly vice president of finance declared

“These 15 student assembly members watched us pour out our traumas and fears on the floor practically begging them to vote no, and finally send a message to the university that we can no longer allow these oppressive institutions to keep us down. Many of these assembly members are white-cis-het men and women who quite literally laughed and danced in our faces when the resolution failed…Their faces are all over social media…We will never forget… their campus careers are over… We must disarm, defund, and disband the Cornell University Police Department.”

Eventually, after a series of failed votes, the student organizers were able to pass Resolution 30, calling to disarm campus police by two votes.

Student Dakota Johnson, a Marine veteran, recounted a confrontation with a government leader where he was allegedly told that:

“As a white man, you cannot be the arbiter of what is and isn’t racist and who is a good or bad person. … You will never be the arbiter because you are a white man.”

The question is the responsibility of universities when students use their positions to deny the free speech of other students or punish those who hold opposing views. There has been a conspicuous silence from faculty ad administrators as both free speech and academic freedom has been attacked in recent years. It is a disgraceful failure to protect the foundational values for academia. Many are afraid of being the next to be targeted by campaigns like those directed against the students at Cornell.  This silence has continued even as faculty are hounded for their views or writings.  We have been discussing these cases across the country including a similar effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as an effort at Harvard targeting a leading academic.  It is part of a wave of intolerance sweeping over our colleges and our newsrooms — a campaign that will devour its own in the loss of academic freedoms and free speech.

Even if we will not protect our colleagues, we have a duty to protect the students who come to our campuses to learn and develop their own views and values. That includes protecting them from being formally punished or ousted for their viewpoints. If we do not fight for them and their rights, we have become entirely untethered from any principle other than our personal advancement and safety.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 18:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3psetVI Tyler Durden

Equity Futures Surge Off Weak Open After Trump Tweet, Gold Gains

Equity Futures Surge Off Weak Open After Trump Tweet, Gold Gains

After opening down around 150 points, Dow futures went panic-bid after President Trump tweeted “Good news on Covid Relief Bill. Information to follow! “

And that lifted futures 250 points or amid negligible liquidity to take out Thursday’s highs…

We suspect now those stops are run, we retest the lows as the algos exhausted themselves on the nothingburger tweet since there is nothing coming aside from the $2,000 bill amendment vote that Republicans have (in enough numbers) been negative about.

We do note that gold ran higher on the headlines (and the dollar is down a smidge)…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 18:44

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2L06b8B Tyler Durden

Illegal Street Vendors “Overtaking” NYC And The Entire City is Blaming Bill De Blasio

Illegal Street Vendors “Overtaking” NYC And The Entire City is Blaming Bill De Blasio

Another day, yet another way in which Comrade De Blasio is turning New York City into a third world country.

In addition to murders rising, restaurants closing, shops being boarded up and a litany of taxation and “redistribution of wealth” tactics that De Blasio has brought to the table during his tenure as Mayor, he is now also being blamed for a inconspicuous rise in illegal street vendors that the New York Post says is “overtaking” the city. 

Pushing items like live crabs, knock-off Louis Vuitton caps and disposable face masks, illegal vendors are making an already miserable 2020 for shop owners even worse. The Post says it counted 27 street vendors on just one side of the street between Sanford and 41st Avenue on Main Street in Flushing. And it doesn’t stop there: vendors are scattered everywhere from Manhattan to the Bronx to Brooklyn. 

The number of illegal street vendor complaints for 2020 have almost eclipsed 2019’s number, despite New York City being in lockdown for 78 days. 

DianSong Yu of the Flushing Business Improvement District told the paper that 90% of vendors aren’t licensed. Of the 20,000 vendors across the city, only a “few thousand” are licensed, Yu said. “It’s a very tough time for everybody, we get it. But we need to be fair to the local merchant who are paying very high rent and taxes. And they’re hurting.”

One vendor who did have a license, and was a military veteran, told the Post: “They’re robbing the city of taxes. They’re taking money from the veterans. They’re taking jobs.”

Another former illegal vendor, now in his 70s, said: “I can understand if you can go out and sell. Why not? But the situation is out of hand – outrageously out of hand.”

Ira Dananberg, who has worked in Flushing for 19 years, said: “I’ve never seen anything like it. People literally have no choice but to walk on top of each other.” He blames the issue on De Blasio for ordering the NYPD to stop cracking down on vendors in June. 

Councilman Peter Koo, who introduced a bill 2 years ago to ban vending on Main Street, called it a “circus” and said the issue “falls squarely on the mayor”. 

The Department of Consumer Affairs is in charge of handing out licenses and limits non-Veteran licenses citywide to 853. Veterans that are honorably discharged can get one for free, while others pay between $100 and $200.

And for items like the live crabs that are being sold during a pandemic that supposedly started in a Chinese wet marketThe wife of a licensed vendor bought a dozen crabs several weeks ago from another vendor and “started to feel sick” after eating them. After her husband cracked one of the crabs open, he found “white worms in the bellies”. The Health Department says it is investigating. 

“Whether the crabs are legal or safe to eat is anybody’s guess. No agency could tell The Post with certainty and none took responsibility for oversight,” the article concluded. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 18:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Kv1nrZ Tyler Durden

Angry at the Failure of His Election Challenges, Trump Calls His Own SCOTUS Nominees Cowardly and Incompetent

Trump-Facebook-video-12-22-20

Explaining the need to swiftly replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett this fall, Donald Trump said the Court likely would have to rule on disputes about the presidential election. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” he told reporters on September 23. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices….This scam that the Democrats are pulling…will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4–4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8–nothing or 9–nothing. But just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth justice.”

In Trump’s view, a ruling against his campaign would be “more political than it should be,” while a ruling in which Barrett voted the way the president who picked her wanted her to vote would be untainted by politics. That counterintuitive view looked even more dubious after Barrett’s confirmation, when Trump warned the justices that siding with Biden in a post-election case would threaten their status and power. “If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President,” he tweeted, “the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well.”

Trump thought Barrett should dance with the one that brought her. But in case that argument was not persuasive enough, he argued that it was in her personal and professional interest to prevent Biden from taking office. In the end, however, Barrett joined the rest of the Court, including Trump’s two other nominees and three justices appointed by Republicans George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, in declining to hear two cases that sought to overturn Biden’s victory.

Trump seems genuinely dismayed by those outcomes. “The fact that the Supreme Court wouldn’t find standing in an original jurisdiction matter between multiple states, and including the President of the States, is absurd,” he tweeted after the justices turned away Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to the election results in four swing states. “They just ‘chickened out’ and didn’t want to rule on the merits of the case. So bad for our Country!”

Yesterday Trump upped the ante, saying the justices—including the three that he appointed—are “totally incompetent and weak” as well as chicken-hearted. “We have absolute PROOF” of “massive Election Fraud,” he said, “but they don’t want to see it…No ‘standing,’ they say. If we have corrupt elections, we have no country!”

Trump’s complaint that the justices won’t even consider his “absolute PROOF” implies that they would have been compelled to side with him if only they had taken up Paxton’s case and/or the lawsuit in which Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pa.) sought to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results. But if the justices (again, including the ones Trump himself picked) are as cowardly, weak, and incompetent as Trump portrays them, what would have stopped them from rejecting these lawsuits on the merits?

In any case, Trump’s implication that he and his allies never really got a chance to present their arguments or evidence is, like nearly everything else he says about the election, demonstrably untrue. The day after the Supreme Court decided not to hear Paxton’s case, a Trump-appointed judge in Wisconsin, one of the states Paxton sued, rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit that made essentially the same arguments about Wisconsin’s election procedures. The campaign’s claims, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig said, “fail as a matter of law and fact.”

The Pennsylvania case likewise was based on arguments that a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit rejected when the Trump campaign made them. Both decisions were scathing.

“Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, whom Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Toomey) described as “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist,” wrote last month. “This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.” Instead, Brann said, “this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

The 3rd Circuit opinion upholding Brann’s decision was written by Stephanos Bibas, a Trump nominee, and joined by two George W. Bush appointees. “The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit,” they said. “The Campaign’s claims have no merit.”

The Nevada Supreme Court’s treatment of the Trump campaign’s claims provides another instructive example. That court currently consists of six justices who were selected in nonpartisan elections and one who was appointed by a Republican governor. The elected justices include several who were appointed to lower courts by Republicans. Yet in a December 8 ruling, the six justices who participated in the case unanimously upheld Carson City District Judge James Russell’s dismissal of a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to overturn Nevada’s election results.

Russell considered the campaign’s “absolute PROOF” of rampant election fraud and was decidedly unimpressed. “The district court’s order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law for expert testimony…or for admissibility,” the Nevada Supreme Court said. “Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none.”

Decisions like these, combined with the Supreme Court’s rejection of the two pro-Trump lawsuits it was asked to consider, clearly show that both Trump and many of his opponents were mistaken in thinking that jurists chosen by Republicans could be expected to rule in his favor, regardless of how weak his arguments and evidence were. Trump, who has no principles beyond his own personal interests, does not know what to make of this. Since he can’t very well charge all these Republican nominees with partisan bias, he resorts to accusing them of cowardice and incompetence.

There is another possible explanation, of course. Maybe state and federal judges, regardless of their political backgrounds or partisan preferences, are doing the jobs they are supposed to do, rejecting legal arguments and evidence that do not hold water. All but one of the 60 or so election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign have failed to make headway. According to a tally by The New York Times, more than two-thirds of them did not even allege actual voting fraud, instead challenging election procedures that Trump thinks were illegal, unconstitutional, or careless. “In nearly a dozen cases,” the Times reports, the campaign’s allegations of fraud “did indeed have their days in court” and “consistently collapsed under scrutiny.”

Given that reality, Trump is not just arguing that the 2020 presidential election was perverted by massive fraud; he is also implying that the judicial system is thoroughly corrupt, rejecting compelling arguments and persuasive evidence for no valid legal reason. “It is historically mathematically, politically, and logically impossible” that Biden won the election, Trump insists in a video he posted on Facebook last week. “We won this election by a magnificent landslide, and the people of the United States know it.” He says he is “determined to pursue every legal and constitutional option available to stop the theft of the presidential election.”

There are not many such options left. Leaving aside fanciful ideas like seizing voting machines, appointing conspiracy monger Sidney Powell to investigate her own wild charges of election fraud, and deploying the military to force a rerun of the election in battleground states, the only big play remaining for Trump is challenging electoral votes when they are officially tallied by Congress on January 6. Even if the Trump allies pursuing that strategy in the House manage to get a senator’s support, which is required to force a vote, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, since Democrats control the House and at least a third of Republican senators have conceded Biden’s victory.

It is impossible to imagine that Trump, having exhausted “every legal and constitutional option,” will suddenly admit that he lost the election. Instead he will continue to loudly decry an electoral system that was blatantly rigged against him, a judicial branch that cannot be trusted to reveal the truth, Justice Department officials who were shockingly incurious about the greatest crime in U.S. history, journalists (including many who work for Trump-friendly news outlets) who are either blinded by their hatred of him or ready to abdicate their professional responsibilities for mysterious reasons, and Republican politicians who either abetted election fraud or prematurely threw in the towel despite the supposedly overwhelming evidence that has impressed no one but the most dedicated Trump fans.

In Trump’s view, nearly everyone and everything, including all of the institutions that are supposed to discover and correct the sort of unprecedented criminal activity he alleges, are conspiring against him. This is the world in which Trump demands that his supporters live. And if they do not accept this preposterous tale, he says, “we have no country!”

Unlike Trump, I have no doubt that we will continue to have a country even when Joe Biden takes office on January 20. But it will be an even angrier, more divided, and less rational country than the one Trump was elected to govern four years ago, which may be his most remarkable accomplishment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nTQoqm
via IFTTT

“Immediate Gratification”-Bias Is Real!

“Immediate Gratification”-Bias Is Real!

Authored by Richard Rosso via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

January is the time to make your fiscal fitness resolutions for 2021.

Most promises we make to ourselves will be a memory by February. Want a fiscal fitness head start and get 2021 going STRONG on the right foot? Here are 9-steps:

#1: A thorough portfolio review with an objective financial partner is timely.

Have you ignored your long-term asset allocation or the mix of stocks, bonds, and cash? With the major stock indices close to new highs, your allocation specifically to stocks may have grown disconnected from your risk tolerance.

Complacency is the emotional foible du jour. After all, every market dip appears to be a buying opportunity. With volatility subdued, investors head blindly overconfident into equity markets.

A financial professional, preferably a fiduciary, can help make sense of how your portfolio’s risk has changed and provide input on rebalancing or selling back to targets for what could shape up to be a very different 2021.

#2: Sell your weak links (losers), trim winners.

Consider tax harvesting where stock losses are realized (you may always purchase the position back in 31 days) and shed profits from winners. Going against the grain when the herd is chasing performance takes intestinal fortitude and investment acumen counterintuitive to the masses.

Candidly, tax-harvesting isn’t such a benefit to overall portfolio performance. However, the action of disposing of dead weight is emotionally empowering, and if gains from trimming winners can offset them, then even better.

Per financial planning thought-leader Michael Kitces, the economic benefit of tax-loss harvesting is best through tax-bracket arbitrage. The most favorable harvesting scenario is a short-term loss offset by a short-term gain (usually taxed at ordinary income rates).

#3: Fire your stodgy brick & mortar bank.

Let’s face it: Brick & mortar banks are financial fossils. How many times did you enter a bank branch over the last five years? Banks won’t be in a hurry to increase rates on conservative vehicles like certificates of deposit, savings accounts, and money market funds even when (if) the Fed raises rates again.

Virtual banks like www.synchronybank.com provide FDIC insurance, don’t charge service fees, and still offer savings rates above the national average.

Accounts are easy to establish online and electronically link to your existing saving or checking accounts to transfer funds.

#4: Get an insurance checkup.

Unwelcome consequences for financial health can arise due to holes in your insurance coverage.

Risk mitigation through insurance is crucial to reduce “financial fragility,” when a life-changing event not adequately prepared for creates an overall collapse of a household’s fiscal state.

Risk mitigation, analysis, and insurance consideration are more crucial than ever before, especially in light of the pandemic.

How are insurance pitfalls revealed?

Common insurance pitfalls surface through comprehensive financial planning. Insufficient life insurance coverage, especially for stay-at-home parents who provide invaluable service, underinsurance of income in the event of long-term disability, overpaying for home and auto coverage are recurring pitfalls.

Common is how high-net-worth individuals lack inexpensive umbrella liability coverage to help protect against major claims and lawsuits. Renter’s insurance appears to be a second thought if it all.

Look to download an insurance checkup document from www.consumer-action.org. It’s a valuable overview and comprehensive education of types of insurance coverage.

Set a meeting with your insurance professional or a Certified Financial Planner who has extensive knowledge of how insurance fits your holistic financial situation.

#5: Maximize your Health Savings Account.

The number of employers moving to high-deductible health care plans for their employees increases every year. Overall, individuals and families are shouldering a more significant portion of health care costs, including premiums every year.

According to a survey of 600 U.S. companies by Willis Towers Watsons, a major benefits consultant, nearly half of employers will implement high-deductible health plans coupled with Health Savings Accounts.

HSA Limits for 2020.

Health Savings Accounts allow individuals and families to make (and employers to match) tax-deductible contributions up to $3,550 and $7,100, respectively, for 2020. Those 55 and older are allowed an additional $1,000 in “catch-up” contributions.

Money invested in an HSA appreciates tax-free and is free of taxation if withdrawn and used for qualified medical expenses. Like a company retirement account, an HSA should have several investment options in the form of mutual funds.

Although Health Savings Accounts provide tax advantages, as an employee, you’re now responsible for a larger portion of out-of-pocket costs, including meeting much higher insurance deductibles. Comprehensive healthcare benefit has morphed into catastrophic coverage.

Employees can no longer afford to visit the doctor for any ailment because the hefty deductible will take a bite out of a household’s cash flow.

At RIA, we recommend participants to refrain from tapping the funds in these accounts. After all, they are “retirement savings accounts,” not “retirement spending accounts.”

Try to refrain from treating an HSA as a current healthcare expense account and look to pay for healthcare co-pays, deductibles, and other costs, if possible, from sources such as brokerage, savings, and checking accounts.

Health Savings Accounts are more versatile than you think. Distributions can pay for Medicare Part A, B, C, and D premiums in addition to the Part B deductible.

For laid-off workers who must consider COBRA health insurance coverage, HSA funds can be used to pay the hefty premiums. What a welcomed relief for cash-strapped families that don’t want to tap retirement accounts drain emergency cash reserves!

#6: Check beneficiary designations on all retirement accounts and insurance policies.

It’s a common mishap to forget to add or change primary and contingent beneficiaries. It’s an easily avoidable mistake. Several states like Texas have formal Family Codes that prevent former spouses from receiving life insurance policies post-divorce with few exceptions.

Proper beneficiary designations allow non-probate assets to transfer to intended parties quickly. Not naming a beneficiary or lack of updating may derail an estate plan as wishes outlined in wills and trusts may be superseded by designations.

#7: Shop for a credit card that better suits your needs.

Listen, it’s perfectly acceptable to utilize credit cards to gain travel points or cash back as long as balances are paid in full every month, so why not find the card that best suits your spending habits and lifestyle?

For example, at www.nerdwallet.com, you can check out the best cash-back credit cards.

For those who carry credit card balances, and unfortunately, it’s all too common, consider contacting your credit card issuer to negotiate a lower rate or threaten to take your business (and your balance) elsewhere.

Keep in mind, on average, an American family maintains more than $5,700 in credit card debt, and the national average annual percentage rate is a whopping 17.98%, according to WalletHub.

8#: Prepare to increase your contribution rate to retirement accounts and emergency cash reserves.

Start 2021 on the right financial foot by increasing payroll deferrals to your company retirement accounts (PREFERABLY ROTH) and bolstering emergency cash reserves. Consider an overall 5% boost and prepare your 2021 household budget now to handle the increase.

#9 Prepare to do a better job and handle your ‘fiscal emotional state’ in 2021.

The chase for return with little regard for risk must come to a halt in 2021. Novice investors feverishly trade on platforms such as Robinhood and consider themselves geniuses when the real hero is easy-money Federal Reserve policies.

It Begs a Question: Are Investors Rational? Yes. And No.

A human’s rationality is bounded. Cognitive abilities are limited and emotional biases, plentiful. As a result, few recognize their deficiencies and depend on mental shortcuts to rise above information overload.

In a market that only goes higher, investment decisions have become full-on ‘System 1.’ As illustrated in Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Princeton, Daniel Kahneman’s bestseller – Thinking Fast, And Slow, human brains operate on two systems.

Consider System 1 the brain on auto-pilot. Fast, emotional, incredibly efficient, but fraught with error. System 2 is the slow, logical, deliberate operator. The one that seeks homework disdains immediate gratification and relishes the long term.

The Federal Reserve’s easy cash’ machine has short-circuited our System 2. RIA’s advisors work diligently to temper investors’ euphoric, irrational states every day. Sometimes it feels like a losing battle.

I’m increasingly worried about how the Federal Government, armed with fiscal stimulus (which I believe continue as an extension and bolster of current social safety nets like unemployment benefits), ignites further blind greed and blistering overconfidence. Do not be one of these investors, especially if you’re five years or closer to retirement.

Immediate gratification bias is real!

Increasingly, we seek a quick reward; we are blind to future outcomes. We focus on today’s satisfaction instead of rewarding discipline, which leads to wealthier tomorrows. Heck, we witness this behavior daily in Congress as ‘debt be damned!’ And while I’m supportive of stimulus, I also understand the ramifications of what we’ve done to long-term GDP growth.

Where should self-fulfillment come from in 2021 and beyond?

In our households, we don’t have money machines. We can’t print our own. We all must find ways to temper spending, live smaller, spend less, and seek fulfillment in things we cannot buy. Based on recent polls, many Americans are finally getting the message: “We must gain control over household spending and exhibit financial discipline in 2021!”

As the years roll by and change, so can habits.

When it comes to money, we can all learn from the power, beauty, and resiliency of accepting what is.

Use 2021 to gain a fresh perspective and improve your financial health.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 17:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38IyQqZ Tyler Durden

Angry at the Failure of His Election Challenges, Trump Calls His Own SCOTUS Nominees Cowardly and Incompetent

Trump-Facebook-video-12-22-20

Explaining the need to swiftly replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett this fall, Donald Trump said the Court likely would have to rule on disputes about the presidential election. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” he told reporters on September 23. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices….This scam that the Democrats are pulling…will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4–4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8–nothing or 9–nothing. But just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth justice.”

In Trump’s view, a ruling against his campaign would be “more political than it should be,” while a ruling in which Barrett voted the way the president who picked her wanted her to vote would be untainted by politics. That counterintuitive view looked even more dubious after Barrett’s confirmation, when Trump warned the justices that siding with Biden in a post-election case would threaten their status and power. “If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President,” he tweeted, “the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well.”

Trump thought Barrett should dance with the one that brought her. But in case that argument was not persuasive enough, he argued that it was in her personal and professional interest to prevent Biden from taking office. In the end, however, Barrett joined the rest of the Court, including Trump’s two other nominees and three justices appointed by Republicans George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, in declining to hear two cases that sought to overturn Biden’s victory.

Trump seems genuinely dismayed by those outcomes. “The fact that the Supreme Court wouldn’t find standing in an original jurisdiction matter between multiple states, and including the President of the States, is absurd,” he tweeted after the justices turned away Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to the election results in four swing states. “They just ‘chickened out’ and didn’t want to rule on the merits of the case. So bad for our Country!”

Yesterday Trump upped the ante, saying the justices—including the three that he appointed—are “totally incompetent and weak” as well as chicken-hearted. “We have absolute PROOF” of “massive Election Fraud,” he said, “but they don’t want to see it…No ‘standing,’ they say. If we have corrupt elections, we have no country!”

Trump’s complaint that the justices won’t even consider his “absolute PROOF” implies that they would have been compelled to side with him if only they had taken up Paxton’s case and/or the lawsuit in which Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pa.) sought to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results. But if the justices (again, including the ones Trump himself picked) are as cowardly, weak, and incompetent as Trump portrays them, what would have stopped them from rejecting these lawsuits on the merits?

In any case, Trump’s implication that he and his allies never really got a chance to present their arguments or evidence is, like nearly everything else he says about the election, demonstrably untrue. The day after the Supreme Court decided not to hear Paxton’s case, a Trump-appointed judge in Wisconsin, one of the states Paxton sued, rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit that made essentially the same arguments about Wisconsin’s election procedures. The campaign’s claims, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig said, “fail as a matter of law and fact.”

The Pennsylvania case likewise was based on arguments that a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit rejected when the Trump campaign made them. Both decisions were scathing.

“Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, whom Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Toomey) described as “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist,” wrote last month. “This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.” Instead, Brann said, “this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

The 3rd Circuit opinion upholding Brann’s decision was written by Stephanos Bibas, a Trump nominee, and joined by two George W. Bush appointees. “The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit,” they said. “The Campaign’s claims have no merit.”

The Nevada Supreme Court’s treatment of the Trump campaign’s claims provides another instructive example. That court currently consists of six justices who were selected in nonpartisan elections and one who was appointed by a Republican governor. The elected justices include several who were appointed to lower courts by Republicans. Yet in a December 8 ruling, the six justices who participated in the case unanimously upheld Carson City District Judge James Russell’s dismissal of a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to overturn Nevada’s election results.

Russell considered the campaign’s “absolute PROOF” of rampant election fraud and was decidedly unimpressed. “The district court’s order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law for expert testimony…or for admissibility,” the Nevada Supreme Court said. “Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none.”

Decisions like these, combined with the Supreme Court’s rejection of the two pro-Trump lawsuits it was asked to consider, clearly show that both Trump and many of his opponents were mistaken in thinking that jurists chosen by Republicans could be expected to rule in his favor, regardless of how weak his arguments and evidence were. Trump, who has no principles beyond his own personal interests, does not know what to make of this. Since he can’t very well charge all these Republican nominees with partisan bias, he resorts to accusing them of cowardice and incompetence.

There is another possible explanation, of course. Maybe state and federal judges, regardless of their political backgrounds or partisan preferences, are doing the jobs they are supposed to do, rejecting legal arguments and evidence that do not hold water. All but one of the 60 or so election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign have failed to make headway. According to a tally by The New York Times, more than two-thirds of them did not even allege actual voting fraud, instead challenging election procedures that Trump thinks were illegal, unconstitutional, or careless. “In nearly a dozen cases,” the Times reports, the campaign’s allegations of fraud “did indeed have their days in court” and “consistently collapsed under scrutiny.”

Given that reality, Trump is not just arguing that the 2020 presidential election was perverted by massive fraud; he is also implying that the judicial system is thoroughly corrupt, rejecting compelling arguments and persuasive evidence for no valid legal reason. “It is historically mathematically, politically, and logically impossible” that Biden won the election, Trump insists in a video he posted on Facebook last week. “We won this election by a magnificent landslide, and the people of the United States know it.” He says he is “determined to pursue every legal and constitutional option available to stop the theft of the presidential election.”

There are not many such options left. Leaving aside fanciful ideas like seizing voting machines, appointing conspiracy monger Sidney Powell to investigate her own wild charges of election fraud, and deploying the military to force a rerun of the election in battleground states, the only big play remaining for Trump is challenging electoral votes when they are officially tallied by Congress on January 6. Even if the Trump allies pursuing that strategy in the House manage to get a senator’s support, which is required to force a vote, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, since Democrats control the House and at least a third of Republican senators have conceded Biden’s victory.

It is impossible to imagine that Trump, having exhausted “every legal and constitutional option,” will suddenly admit that he lost the election. Instead he will continue to loudly decry an electoral system that was blatantly rigged against him, a judicial branch that cannot be trusted to reveal the truth, Justice Department officials who were shockingly incurious about the greatest crime in U.S. history, journalists (including many who work for Trump-friendly news outlets) who are either blinded by their hatred of him or ready to abdicate their professional responsibilities for mysterious reasons, and Republican politicians who either abetted election fraud or prematurely threw in the towel despite the supposedly overwhelming evidence that has impressed no one but the most dedicated Trump fans.

In Trump’s view, nearly everyone and everything, including all of the institutions that are supposed to discover and correct the sort of unprecedented criminal activity he alleges, are conspiring against him. This is the world in which Trump demands that his supporters live. And if they do not accept this preposterous tale, he says, “we have no country!”

Unlike Trump, I have no doubt that we will continue to have a country even when Joe Biden takes office on January 20. But it will be an even angrier, more divided, and less rational country than the one Trump was elected to govern four years ago, which may be his most remarkable accomplishment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nTQoqm
via IFTTT

2020 Gun Sales Shatter Records As Americans Lock N’ Load

2020 Gun Sales Shatter Records As Americans Lock N’ Load

Amid 2020’s ‘perfect storm’ of racial tensions, lockdowns, and a record spike in unemployment which coincided with a national crime wave, people have been stocking up on firearms like never before.

According to monthly FBI data, November was the busiest month on record for background checks with over 3.6 million applications – a figure which is up 40% from the prior November, putting the country at an all-time high of 35,758,249 checks so far this year – and 26% higher than 2019’s 28,400,000 checks.

Typical gun owner

The increase over 2019 marks the highest percentage increase in the 21-year history of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (when one excludes data from the year 2,000 when the system was fully implemented and produced a synthetic 1,000% increase).

Still, November’s 3.6 million checks only places it fourth in 2020, as June saw a record 3,931,607 checks amid widespread rioting and violence amid BLM anti-police protests which began in late May following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died while in custody of Minneapolic police.

As Just The News notes:

That number is certain to grow even larger: The present total of checks in 2020 does not include December’s numbers. Historical data indicate that December’s checks tend to be elevated relative to the rest of the year. 

Though each individual background check does not necessarily represent an individual buyer (many gun-buyers will purchase several guns in a year, while many others will fail their background check), the gun industry has reported significant first-time customer activity this year.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported in June that gun retailers estimated 40% of their sales during the first four months of the year went to first-time gun owners, and that nearly half of those first-time buyers were women, both notable upticks.

“Gun sales have been high and steady this entire year, even during the [COVID-19] shutdown,” said Peyton Galanti, spokeswoman for the Colonial Shooting Academy in Richmond, VA, who added that the market had been driven by “first-time gun buyers” and “people who never thought they’d own a gun” (also known as Democrats).

“Our classes have been sold out months ahead and, until about this week, range time has also been way up all year,” Galanti added.

Meanwhile, the record gun sales coincided with a massive ammunition shortage.

“Getting guns, getting optics, getting ammo is tough right now,” said Tim Grover, firearms instructor with Jackson, Nebraska-based Rev-Tac.

Jake Schira, owner of Gunsmith Jake LLC in Rothschild,WI says “I get like 20 to 40 calls a day pertaining to people looking to buy ammunition or searching for it.” Another nearby gun store owner, Mitch Mode, told WAOW: “We are into gun deer season, where we should have ammo for everybody, but we have ammo for nobody.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 17:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34Opxoa Tyler Durden

Are ‘Never Trumpers’ The Future Of The GOP?

Are ‘Never Trumpers’ The Future Of The GOP?

Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Denouncing the $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill as a parsimonious “disgrace” and hinting at an Alamo-style finish on Jan. 6, when Congress votes to declare Joe Biden the next president, Donald Trump is not going to go quietly.

The anti-Trumpers and “Never Trumpers” celebrating at Christmas 2020, in this “dark winter” of Joe Biden’s depiction, are assuring each other that Trumpism and Trump are dead and gone for good in four weeks.

The future of the GOP, they suggest, belongs to the Republicans who resisted and renounced Trump through the last five years of his candidacy and presidency.

As for those cowards and collaborators who stood by Trump and refused to repudiate him, they will, in turn, be repudiated by history and the American electorate alike.

The wish, here, is very much the father to the thought.

For if the past is any guide, not only are the reports of the death of Trumpism premature, the probability is that Trumpism has put down roots in our national politics that are not soon, if ever, going to be pulled up.

For those of us of a certain age, a comparable situation arose at Christmas 1964. Barry Goldwater had just been crushed in a 44-state landslide, winning the votes of only 27 million Americans. The senator had carried only five states of the Deep South and his home state of Arizona.

The establishment saw in the crushing of Goldwater the defeat and rout of the “extremist” movement that had produced him. “The Party That Lost Its Head” was the title of a widely hailed post-election book by two Ripon Society Republicans.

The establishment consensus was that Govs. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, William Scranton of Pennsylvania and George Romney of Michigan were the future of the party, if it was to have a future.

What followed?

Richard Nixon, who had stood by Goldwater when the party’s liberal elite abandoned him, would lead the GOP to recapture 47 House seats in 1966, take the presidency in 1968, and run up a 49 state landslide in 1972.

Thus began a period of GOP presidential ascendancy, with Nixon, Reagan and Bush I winning five of six elections from 1968 to 1988, until the first baby boomer president, Bill Clinton, arrived on the scene.

And while there are differences between now and then, there are many similarities.

Do the anti-Trumpers or “Never Trumpers” represent the future of the GOP? If so, where is the postwar precedent for this? No Republican who turned his back on Goldwater was ever nominated for president or vice president following Goldwater’s defeat.

When President Gerald Ford put Rockefeller on his ticket after taking over from President Nixon, the Kansas City convention of 1976 demanded Rockefeller’s removal as the price of party unity.

Rockefeller was sacrificed, as the right had demanded.

Four years after Ford’s defeat, Mr. Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater’s most effective surrogate in 1964, was nominated and won successive landslides in 1980 and 1984.

Other factors and forces point to the probability that Trumpism has a major role in the party’s future.

Where Presidents Truman, Nixon, and George W. Bush left office with approval ratings in the 20s, Trump’s approval rating is still in the 40s, where it has been for the duration of his presidency.

Second, the issues that propelled Trump to the nomination and the Oval Office still resonate with the American people.

Among them are mass migration, insecure borders and dependency upon foreign imports for the necessities of our national life.

Moreover, there is shrinking support for a foreign policy that has us tied down militarily in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East, to fight if need be, in the defense of scores of nations, few of which have a direct bearing on the national security of the United States.

Another issue Trump elevated and exploited that is more acute now than in 2016, is a distrust of the media, the “deep state” and the political, cultural and academic establishments that have alienated the 74 million who voted for Trump.

And if the past is prologue, the Republican Party will make a major comeback in 2022.

Consider. Two years after his smashing victory over Goldwater, LBJ and his party lost 47 House seats. Ronald Reagan, after his landslide in 1980, lost 26 House seats in 1982. After routing Bush I in 1992, Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats and the Senate. Two years after winning the presidency, Barack Obama lost both the House and Senate in 2014.

Is it likely Joe Biden will be celebrating his 80th birthday after making history by leading his party to control of Congress in 2022?

For Republicans, the nomination of 2024 is a prize to be sought.

However, if one has spent the last four years trashing Trump, it may be as out of reach as it was for Rocky.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 16:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3mWeCyO Tyler Durden

Nashville Bombing Suspect Named; May Have Targeted AT&T Building, Mayor Suggests

Nashville Bombing Suspect Named; May Have Targeted AT&T Building, Mayor Suggests

Metro Nashville Police have confirmed 63-year-old Anthony Q. Warner is a suspect in connection with the Downtown Nashville bombing on Christmas Day. 

Federal agents raided Warner’s home on Saturday afternoon. Several neighbors told WaPo that a recreational vehicle, similar to the one that exploded Friday morning, was parked in his backyard for months. 

On Saturday, we quoted CBS’ David Begnaud as saying, “one theory investigators are looking at, regarding the Nashville Christmas Day explosion, is the possibility that AT&T may have been the target or some other building or infrastructure in the area of the explosion.” 

By late Saturday, local news WSMV News4 reported that “FBI agents spent the days at another location today besides searching the home of Anthony Warner, pursuing tips that he was paranoid about 5g spying on Americans.”

During an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday morning, Nashville Mayor John Cooper said the bombing location suggests Warner intended to attack the AT&T building. He said the city is rushing to protect critical infrastructure in the wake of the attack.

“Those of us in Nashville realize that on Second Avenue, there is a big AT&T facility and the truck was parked adjacent to this large, historic AT&T facility, which happens to be in downtown Nashville,” Cooper told CBS. “And to all of us locally, it feels like there has to be some connection with the AT&T facility and the site of the bombing.”

He also said that it’s “a bit of just local insight in because it’s got to have something to do with the infrastructure.”

Besides Warner’s home, federal agents visited a real estate agency office where he worked on computers. 

According to The Tennessean, Steve Fridrich, owner of Fridrich & Clark Realty in Nashville, said Warner provided his firm with computer consulting services for the last four or five years.

Last month, Warner wrote an email to the realty company that he would no longer be working for them. Fridrich said Warner gave no reason. 

“He seemed very personable to us – this is quite out of character I think,” Fridrich told the newspaper.

Hitting the wires Sunday afternoon is a report that Rutherford and Wilson Counties’ deputies are investigating a white box truck, parked on Highway 231 South near Cedars of Lebanon State Park, Tennessee, which reportedly played a similar audio recording to the recreational vehicle that exploded in Nashville, according to News Channel 5.

Deputies have closed down the highway and have sent a bomb squad robot to investigate. 

Nashville Police are expected to hold a press conference around 1600 ET. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/27/2020 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3nRMxdi Tyler Durden