Obama And His Nasty DNA. Bio-Tech. Much More Diverse Articles Etc.

Uncle Joe does it again:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/joe-biden-tells-awkward-joke-pre-kindergarteners-new-jersey-governors-wife-runs-everybody-else-video/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is this what it has come to?

Is Hunter Biden's Art Dealer Driving Up the Price of the Pieces by Promising Access to POTUS?

READ →

 +++++++

And:

Obama continues being his divisive self.  Nastiness is part of his DNA.

Obama Digs Into His Dirty Bag Of Tricks To Help Democrats Win

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A recent memo was predominantly devoted to my market career and some recent thoughts and I highlighted the fact that I owned a few long shot biotech stocks so I thought this article, which subsequently came out, might be of interest:

How to Determine the Next Big Biotech Move

Marc Lichtenfeld, Chief Income Strategist, The Oxford Club

My career has been what you might call "nontraditional."

Very few Wall Street analysts spent their early 20s doing theater in Greenwich Village.

When I started teaching myself about investing - just because I was a struggling actor didn't mean I had to be a starving actor - I learned how to read financial statements and analyze companies (fundamental analysis). Then, when I started trading, I studied price action (technical analysis).

After a few months at my job as a fundamental analyst with the most contrarian research firm on Wall Street, I was approached by my boss, who'd heard I knew about technical analysis. Imagine my surprise when he asked me to start writing a technical analysis note for clients every morning.

Since then, I've always used technical analysis as a timing tool when looking at a stock or sector.

Today, I'm shining my technical analysis light on the biotech sector.

The biotech sector can be volatile. Biotech stocks can have big swings depending on earnings, clinical trial data or regulatory approvals.

Over the past 10 years, the sector has outperformed the overall market. The sector, as represented by the iShares Biotechnology ETF (Nasdaq: IBB), is up 407% while the S&P 500 has gained 352%.

Biotech Has Outperformed the Overall Market

Recently, however, the sector hasn't been great. Since hitting a high of $177.37 in August, the biotech exchange-traded fund (ETF) is down 11%. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is up 2.5% over the same period.

Despite the recent drop in the biotech sector, I like its technical setup.

Shown below is a weekly chart going back three years. It shows the performance of the ETF up close.

iShares Biotechnology ETF Is Showing Signs of Uptrend

You can see that the iShares Biotechnology ETF has made higher highs and higher lows, an important feature of an uptrend.

Furthermore, the reading on the bottom of the chart is a technical indicator called a stochastic oscillator. It is a measure of momentum. Whenever stochastics hit 20 (like the instances circled in blue on the chart), the stock is considered oversold. You can see that over the past three years, practically every time stochastics neared 20, the ETF rallied.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is There Really a Climate Emergency?

The climate is the most complex system on Earth. Is it really possible to project with any precision what it will be like 20, 40, or even 100 years from now? Steve Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration, challenges the confident assumptions of climate alarmists. Click here to watch this video.

Watch Now

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So what, who cares, what difference does it make. Just as long as you are achieving equity, whatever the hell that means.  Justice is out the window.

Biden-Wyden Wealth Tax Would Break Campaign Pledge, Run Afoul of Constitution

By IRA STOLL, Special to the Sun

Joe Biden got himself elected president partly by opposing the billionaires’ wealth tax proposed during the primary campaign by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Now, in a reversal, President Biden is preparing to embrace the idea. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a presidential candidate’s plans changed after getting elected

The shamelessness of the way that Mr. Biden has shifted on the issue, though, is something else. It risks undercutting the President’s claim to being a voice of moderation. It also might reinforce voter cynicism. How’s democracy supposed to work if a politician, once elected, brazenly abandons one of the policy positions that won him the job?

Mr. Biden told wealthy donors during the campaign that they shouldn’t expect a tax cut from him, “But! No punishment, either.” Yet that promise may not survive the Senate, which is readying what the New York Times describes as “a proposal by Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and the Finance Committee chairman, that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars with a wealth tax on just 600 to 700 people — America’s billionaires.”

The Times reports that “Under the proposal, people with $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three consecutive years would be brought into a new tax system. Initially, they would have to assess the current value of their tradable assets — like cash, stocks and bonds — and their value when they were purchased, then pay a one-time tax on them.”

The Washington Post reports that “The plan would also set up a system for taxing assets that are not easily tradable, such as real estate.” It also reports that “Billionaires would also be able to take deductions for any annual loss in value of those assets.”

The constitutional challenges that such a plan would face are considerable. The number of persons subject to such a tax is small enough that it could be subject to the Constitution’s prohibition, in Article I, against a bill of attainder.

The 16th Amendment that gave Congress the power to tax income applies to income taxes, not wealth taxes. Imposing a wealth tax, then, may not even be among the enumerated powers of Congress. Hence the effort by Secretary of Treasury Yellen to deny that the Biden-Wyden Wealth Tax even is a wealth tax.

“I wouldn’t call that a wealth tax,” she said, according to the Wall Street Journal. Her colleagues among the congressional Democrats are more plainspoken. “We will probably have a wealth tax,” Speaker Pelosi said, according to the same Wall Street Journal article.

A wealth tax could also violate the Fifth Amendment takings clause, the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, and the Article I prohibition against ex post facto law. I understand that courts have ruled the ex post facto provision applies to criminal law, not tax rates.

The philosophical and moral point, though, is that laws should be predictable and prospective rather than arbitrary and retroactive. The targets of these taxes took risks and structured businesses based on an understanding of tax law as it was.

For non-billionaires, imagine how you’d feel if something the government had told you was tax-exempt — say, your past charitable contributions or mortgage interest, or accumulated gains in your retirement account — was suddenly going to be subject to taxes. It’d be like changing the rules of a baseball game not just mid-season, but mid-plate-appearance. Or of an election once voting began.

It’s possible that Mr. Biden himself is secretly hoping that some future court strikes the billionaires tax down as unconstitutional. Unlike Mrs. Warren and Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden didn’t really want to punish successful entrepreneurs. He does, though, want to push his spending plans through Congress, and if this is the only way to do that, it appears to be a price he would accept.

If a court eventually blocks the tax, Mr. Biden would get what’d be for him politically the best of both worlds — the spending, but not the tax increase.

It reminds me a bit of when George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 into law. Substantial portions of it were later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Mr. Bush had signed the bill into law while saying “Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns... I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.”

The Constitution includes the wording of a presidential oath of office that says the president “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” A veto of the billionaires tax would let Mr. Biden keep his “no punishment” campaign promise — and would also honor his inauguration day oath.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN THE WEEK IN PICTURES

THE GEEK IN PICTURES: NO ENERGY IN THIS EXECUTIVE EDITION

When Alexander Hamilton wrote of “energy in the executive,” he could never have imagined the lack of energy in our current chief executive, in both senses of the word: the man has no personal energy, and he’s flailing over the the kind of energy the rest of us need and use.

• Let’s start with what low-energy poll numbers look like:

 

Gee, I wonder if Biden’s open border policy is less than popular with those Hispanics who don’t go by “Latinx,” i.e., 95 percent of all Hispanics who don’t dine in faculty clubs.

• Total economic output is back tp pre-pandemic levels. Remind me again why we need more government stimulus? (Ah, right—we’re underachieving on inflation. . .)

On the other hand, this is a bad sign—talk about “the great reset”:

A reminder:

• Let’s do some energy. Lots of capital flowing into energy, though this chart doesn’t tell us how much is traditional fossil energy (oil, gas, and coal) and how much is the trendy, subsidized green energy. I have heard that there’s a lot of private equity going into old-style energy because the returns are so good right now.

Oh, and about that whole “going electric” bit:

No wonder the greenies hate bitcoin:

Reminder of the real future of energy, as projected by our own Department of Energy (hint: it doesn’t look like “Net Zero” in 2050):

• One sign of how much the campus virus has taken over corporate America (“chief diversity and inclusion officer” is the column to the right):

You know how the racialist left loves to think America is the most heinous racist nation ever? Have a close look at these data:

And guess what other progressive position is uniformly unpopular:

• The college enrollment collapse looks to be starting in earnest:

• Biden, tougher on trade than Trump?

• ‘Murica:

• News you can use:

And finally. . .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

Hoover articles:

Climate Promises Cost Nothing. Change Will Cost A Fortune. by Niall Ferguson via Bloomberg Glasgow translates as “dear green place.” At COP26, they’ll find that going green is dear indeed. +++ On Russia, Joe Biden Has Struck Out by Russell A. Berman via National Interest In this era of great power competition, the Biden administration needs to be called out on its three strikes in pipeline politics, military basing, and mineral resources. Co-Author with Ricky Gill +++   High Stakes In Virginia by Thomas Sowell via Creators Syndicate Although Virginia has been a politically blue state for years, this year's election has the Democrats' governor facing a serious challenge. +++