Oct 15

Today’s News 15th October 2024

  • After Summit Snub, UK Government "Absolutely Ready To Engage" With Musk
    After Summit Snub, UK Government “Absolutely Ready To Engage” With Musk

    Via OilPrice.com,

    Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has suggested that Elon Musk was not invited to the government’s international investment summit due to his tendency to avoid such events. 

    Previous reports suggested Musk, the owner of X and Tesla, was omitted from the guest list following controversial social media comments he made regarding Britain’s summer riots, where he controversially claimed civil war was “inevitable.”

    In response to the snub, Musk recently said on X:

    “I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts.”

    However, in an interview with Times Radio this morning, Kyle said:

    “Elon Musk has never come to any of the past investment summits that have been held under the previous government, he doesn’t tend to do these sort of events, but I stand absolutely ready to engage with him, to talk about any potential global investments he’s making – I’m not aware of any at this moment in time.”

    He added that “we have good engagement with some of his companies” and praised Musk for the safe landing of his booster rocket yesterday.

    On Sky News today, Kyle also denied that Musk was not invited because he called the prime minister “two tier Kier”.

    The international investment summit, taking place today, will see Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledge to slash red tape that is hindering investment in the UK.

    Australian infrastructure giant Macquarie is expected to announce £20bn in new investment in the UK, and total pledges from businesses at the summit could reach as high as £50bn. 

    High profile speakers at the event include Blackrock boss Larry Fink, former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, ex-England manager Gareth Southgate, and Aviva chief Amanda Blanc. 

    X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/15/2024 – 02:00

  • 'Our Democracy' Marks 'Their Duplicity'
    ‘Our Democracy’ Marks ‘Their Duplicity’

    Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,

    Presently, we are embroiled in a presidential campaign. It is the apex of political messaging, as both parties and their well-heeled allies bombard the electorate with varying promises, claims, smears, and deceits.

    One of the Democrats’ and their “Never Trump” cohorts’ favorite narratives is that the GOP candidate, former president Trump, is divisive and that he must be defeated to allow the Democrat nominee, Vice President Harris, to unite the nation. To believe this, one must concur with the Democrats and Never Trumpers on two counts: first, Mr. Trump, his MAGA supporters, and the GOP are divisive; and, second, Ms. Harris and the Democrats are not divisive but rather a unifying political force.

    For purposes of this piece, let us stipulate Mr. Trump and his MAGA and GOP supporters are “divisive,” if only for the simple reason they dissent from the Democrats radical, extreme, and dangerous agenda; and, moreover, unapologetically champion the populist and conservative principles and policies they believe will promote and protect the liberty, prosperity, and security of our free republic.

    Nonetheless, even with this stipulation, it is impossible for an objective mind to conclude Ms. Harris and her Democrat supporters are a unifying force within our deeply divided nation. The Democrats are, by design, a divisive party that premises its campaigns and policies upon identity politics—race, gender, class, etc.; and, at root, offers the electorate varying and increasing levels of paranoia and dependence upon the Leviathan—i.e., the administrative state, which is controlled by their cohorts who are ensconced within the unaccountable and remunerative sinecures housed in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy.

    Consider the Democrats’ demanding the citizenry’s obeisance to their DIE (“diversity, inclusivity, and equity”) secular religion, which one is compelled to believe above all else.

    The left defines “diversity” with external traits, not internal thoughts. In sum, this inherently divides the entire population by physical traits and social castes into “manageable” political blocs—the “Balkanization” of the American electorate. Their root fallacy is that how you look determines how you think. The left purports it is using one’s “lived experience” to make this differentiation, but this experience is presumed to have occurred (even if it has not) based on your external appearance and/or economic status. Such a prejudicial pronouncement upon one’s fellow citizens is patronizing, demeaning, and—in its most heinous manifestations—racist. (Why do you think progressives have expended so much energy trying to redefine and dilute the definition of “racism” to weaponize it against, not racists, but non-leftists?)

    Once an individual has been pigeonholed into one of the Democrats’ diversity classifications and it is marked with its “social credit” connotations, these leftist social engineers will cajole and coerce them into their “inclusive” collective, wherein what matters is not individual rights but one’s allegiance to the left’s ideological dictates. True, some individual rights and licenses are granted by the state, but they are in addition to our unalienable, God-given rights we already possess and that cannot be infringed by the state. The left disagrees, believing the state is the ultimate grantor of rights and that “Our Democracy” must not be impaired by the antiquated concept of unalienable, God-given constitutional rights. Consequently, the left believes a citizen’s rights are not God-given but rather government-given. As such, they constitute not unalienable rights; they are arbitrary and conditional licenses. This subordinates the citizens’ sovereignty to the supremacy of the state.

    As the Supreme State doles its licenses, it will decide what is “equitable.” This is merely another of the left’s euphemisms for socialism—as is Ms. Harris’s “Opportunity Society.” But once citizens have been civically and economically diminished by the Democrats’ delineating and dividing them on basis of physical traits and economic status and by being subsumed into a leftist collective, Americans will have little recourse to dissent, let alone rid themselves of such a repressive, autocratic socialist regime.

    Why would people subject themselves to this DIE agenda? This is where the left’s paranoia pimping enters stage left. The Democrats aver that they and their administrative state are needed to protect citizens from sundry conspiracies out to block Americans’ pursuit of happiness—or worse. Hence, the Greek chorus of Democrats wailing about “Systemic Racism,” “The Patriarchy,” “Threats to Democracy,” and so forth. This is literally a party that smears its opponents as existential threats to “Our Democracy” and demands these opponents be crushed so that they may never again threaten it. Such inherently divisive narratives are designed to lure people into the illusory “security” of the one extant entity capable of controlling Americans’ lives—“Their Government.”

    So, how does a progressive manage to believe they are the champions of “Our Democracy,” even as they burn it to the ground to persecute their opponents? By reason of a simple intellectual sleight-of-hand. When Democrats bleat “Our Democracy,” it is a “prog whistle” that, translated, means “Our Party.” Conflating the fortunes of their party with those of the country, the Democrats have the capacity for enormous self-regard that allows them to engage in immense amounts of cognitive dissonance and self-justification as they attempt to foist their reckless, harmful agenda on Americans.

    Yes, Republicans also believe their fortunes will save “Our Republic.” But there is a critical distinction. Democrats define “unity” as a uniformity of agreement. Republicans define “unity” as a uniformity of acceptance.

    This explains why the Democrats are hellbent to force their DIE ideology on people and why Republicans oppose it. It is an overlooked irony that the left, which obsesses over the diversity of external traits, demands the conformity of internal thoughts. The Twentieth Century is replete with bitter instances of such an ideology’s failed attempts to dictate a rigid uniformity of ideological agreement in the vainglorious hopes of recreating and perfecting humanity.

    The answer to such state coercion is still federalism and pluralism. A limited, divided government charged with protecting the unalienable God-given rights of sovereign citizens remains the surest path upon which to pursue one’s happiness. The acceptance required is of the ground rules of the nation—of the constitution, of the peaceable means of effectuating constructive change, of someone else’s thoughts and their right to hold and advocate them, and of your reciprocal right to disagree and oppose their ideas. E pluribus unum—“Out of many, one”—has well served and enriched our nation and must remain the abiding goal.

    Again, the left deems federalism and pluralism as bars to the implementation of their autocratic, socialist state, which will determine and map your pursuit of happiness whether you like it or not. It is evinced in why the left crafted the word “diversity” to supplant “pluralism.” Ponder that the root of the word, “div-,” as is found in words such as “divisive,” “divest,” “divorce,” and so forth, that do not exactly scream “unity.”

    Nor does their pushing of their “Our Democracy” narrative to supplant the reality we live in a constitutional republic with limits upon its enumerated and citizen-delegated powers; and the duty to serve as a guardian of our unalienable God-given rights and the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic—be they a dictator or a mob.

    As they do, the left reveals how their clamor and connivance for “Our Democracy” merely mark “Their Duplicity.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 23:25

  • Oregon DEI Forestry Snitch Busts Boss For Prioritizing Qualified Candidates Over "Gender Identity"
    Oregon DEI Forestry Snitch Busts Boss For Prioritizing Qualified Candidates Over “Gender Identity”

    Oregon’s #2 official at the Department of Forestry, Mike Shaw, was placed on administrative leave after the department’s former DEI strategy officer, Megan Donecker, complained that Shaw had “beyond gender and identity in hiring, seeking only candidates most qualified for the job,” Oregon Live reports.

    Megan Donecker, an avid Dungeons and Dragons player, says queer staffers are not safe because they can’t have ‘conversations around pronouns’ at work.   

    Donecker first became triggered when Shaw pushed for a more careful approach to DEI – comparing the slide into wokism to speeding on “an icy road.” She says that Shaw warned “We don’t go 60 (mph) out of the gate, or we’re gonna crash the car.”

    What’s more, Donecker also reportedly claimed that six homosexual staffers didn’t “feel safe or comfortable” at work because they could not have “conversation around pronouns,” and referred to the department as a “boys club,” the Daily Mail reports further.

    The purple-haired Donecker has since quit the department and now works as a DEI consultant, describing herself as an “accomplice to marginalized communities,” whatever that means.

    The Oregon Department of Forestry didn’t directly address the allegations, but said that leadership “takes employee complaints and concerns seriously and, when brought to our attention, we ensure they’re handled in accordance with state laws, rules, policies and HR best practices. This includes protecting employees from retaliation.”

    “Providing a safe, diverse and inclusive workplace is a shared core value and priority of both the department and the Board of Forestry,” said State Forester Cal Mukumoto.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 23:00

  • Will Politicians Toxify Freedom Forever?
    Will Politicians Toxify Freedom Forever?

    Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute,

    The official theme song of the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is “Freedom” by Beyonce. But a more accurate theme would be the Rolling Stones classic, Under my Thumb.

    Vice President Harris is seeking the presidency as the greatest champion of freedom in modern times.

    But Kamala-style freedom will only unleash the government, not private citizens.

    The original Bill of Rights created a row of bulwarks for citizens to prevent government oppression. In the era of the American Revolution, it was a common saying: “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People.” But Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, are offering a “freedom,” seemingly inspired by Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito: “The more powerful the State, the more freedom.”

    Harris begins by tacitly presuming that politicians must forcibly save humanity. Harris seeks to vastly expand government intervention to supposedly give people true freedom in daily life. Harris’s “freedom” presumes government is irrevocably benevolent—unless you are a bad person who deserves punishment or subjugation or overtaxing. But the definition of “bad” can be endlessly expanded to include anyone who howls about being fleeced, locked down, or muzzled.

    Harris-Walz Freedom requires maximum government interference in daily life. Harris called for a merciless crackdown on misinformation, including punishing social media companies that fail to kowtow to Washington. Walz is emphatic that there is no freedom of speech for “misinformation”—a vague notion which can include any statement disapproved by officialdom. When did America’s most distrusted occupation—politicians—become entitled to define truth and to forcibly suppress and punish what they label “misinformation”?

    Under the Harris-Walz standard, Americans will only have the freedom to say anything that the government approves. Walz endorsed a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld imprisoning anyone who criticized military conscription during World War One. The Biden administration was condemned by federal judges for suppressing millions of comments and jokes by Americans about Covid mandates and shutdowns. But according to liberals, that wasn’t censorship because only reactionaries or deplorables complained about pandemic policies. Plus, Fauci is still a saint. 

    Mindy Kaling, an actress and emcee for the third night of the Democratic National Convention, invoked “the freedom to work one job and afford your rent.” The Biden administration floated proposals for nationwide rent control and Harris is championing proposals to stop “price gouging.” To achieve true freedom, bureaucrats would commandeer veto power over any contract dealing with housing or food. And when federal price controls caused devastating shortages, that would simply prove that politicians need even more power over daily life.

    At the Democratic National Convention, a Harris campaign video pledged that she would deliver “freedom from extremism.” But that would provide a blank check to suppress any ideas of which politicians disapprove. Newsweek reported last year that the FBI created “a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers.” To permit politicians to define extremism is to let them preemptively vilify their most dangerous critics. Two years ago, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre asserted, “When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” This is a definition of extremism that could put the federal crosshairs on most people who visit this website.

    “Freedom from fear” is another Harris-Walz promise. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. People who sound the alarm about excessive government power will be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms are reported.

    Harris promises the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.” Harris previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people’s homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Freedom from fear of guns will justify politicians confiscating any firearm that frightens any liberal in the land. Disarming Americans will leave them in total dependency on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place.

    Walz declared that he and Kamala were devoted to safeguarding “the freedom for children to go to school without worrying if they’ll be shot in the halls.” But what about children’s freedom not to be forcibly injected with experimental vaccines? Liberal Democratic governors in California and New York pushed hard to make Covid vaccines mandatory for school kids. California is also safeguarding the “freedom” to mastermind using drugs or other interventions to assist kids to change their gender while keeping the treatment secret from parents.

    Harris champions “the fundamental freedom of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body.” But vast numbers of nurses were fired for refusing to get the Covid vaccine that Biden mandated for all health care workers. Biden sought to compel tens of millions to get those injections despite their dismal failure to prevent Covid infections or transmission. The Supreme Court blocked Biden’s mandate for private employees but perversely allowed it for health care workers (even though many of them had natural immunity after recovering from Covid infections). That court decision did not prevent liberal governors and mayors from imposing vaccine passport restrictions that effectively sought to banish the unvaccinated from society. 

    All that matters is that the latest Covid booster is government-approved—so forcing people to get injected is no violation of individual freedom, which includes freedom to obey your superiors. The same standard could justify imposing endless vaccine mandates for future plagues that escape from federally-funded labs.

    Harris pledges to give Americans “the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Since the 1970s, federal legislation has sharply curbed pollution of air and water. And how would Harris define this new “freedom”? Parts per billion or parts per trillion of contaminants? To achieve Harris’s vague standards, federal regulators would be entitled to ban gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves. Harris would also entitle bureaucrats to inflict endless restrictions on development to satisfy the latest green fetish.

    Harris-Walz freedom is a circus shell game in which constitutional restraints vanish and politicians always win. Once politicians invoke the new freedoms to stretch their power, it will not matter whether they deliver the bounties they promise. Citizens will be left muzzled and disarmed and at the mercy of officialdom.

    The campaign video pledged that Harris would give Americans “freedom from control.” A more honest Harris-Walz campaign slogan would be: “For your own good.” Or maybe promise Americans the “freedom to be what the government approves”? Perhaps the Harris-Walz art team could create an icon portraying an iron fist as the new, improved symbol of freedom. Adding a smiley face atop the fist would harmonize with the Harris “joy” and “positive vibes” campaign theme. 

    Redefining boundless arbitrary power as freedom is the death knell for government under the law. The Harris-Walz delusions on freedom stem in part from the Democratic Party’s perverse notion of the proper role of government. The perverse redefinition of freedom parallels the attempt to portray politicians as literal saviors. At the Democratic National Convention, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham hailed Harris: “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” 

    Not me. I have enough shams in my life without some politician pretending to be my friend.

    Instead of vesting blind trust in Harris and Walz, Americans should heed Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 warning: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Those constitutional chains will come in damn handy no matter who wins the election next month.

    Is there as much confusion in America on the meaning of freedom as there is on the benefits of tariffs? For almost half a century, prevailing opinion in this nation recognized the folly of permitting politicians to recklessly blockade our own ports with heavy taxes on imports. But both parties are now portraying tariffs as economic magic wands.

    Similarly, Americans for generations had an instinctive recognition of the danger of unleashing politicians and letting government officials wantonly intrude into their lives. The Supreme Court declared in 1934, “A general, roving… investigation, conducted by a commission without any allegations… is unknown to our Constitution and laws; and such an inquisition would be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny.” But this is practically the recipe for Harris-Walz freedom as well as some of Donald Trump’s interventionist schemes. Regardless of the election outcome, Americans must beware of Trojan horse definitions of freedom that allow bureaucrats to clamor out and take over everyone’s lives.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 22:35

  • Almost 90% Of Voters Want CBS To Release Deceptively Edited Kamala Harris Interview
    Almost 90% Of Voters Want CBS To Release Deceptively Edited Kamala Harris Interview

    Close to 90% of voters want CBS to release the transcripts from Kamala Harris’ ’60 Minutes’ interview which was deceptively edited to make her appear intelligent.

    According to a new Harvard Harris poll, 87% of Democrats, 88% of Republicans and 80% of independents think CBS should “release the full transcript of its interview with Kamala Harris.”

    That said, while 81% of Republicans think CBS edited the interview to make Harris look better, 50% of independents agree, along with just 27% of Democrats.

    To review, CBS came under fire for deceptively editing the Harris interview – replacing her word-salad answer from a pre-interview teaser with a completely different answer in the version that aired.

    When asked by host Bill Whitaker why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t listening to the United States, Harris originally replied:

    “Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”

    But in the version that aired, Harris’ answer was: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

    Watch:

    In response, the Trump campaign demanded that the network release the full interview.

    “On Sunday, 60 Minutes teased Kamala’s highly-anticipated sit-down interview with one of her worst word salads to date, which received significant criticism on social media,” said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary. “During the full interview on Monday evening, the word salad was deceptively edited to lessen Kamala’s idiotic response.”

    “Why did 60 Minutes choose not to air Kamala’s full word salad, and what else did they choose not to air?” she asked. “The American people deserve the full, unedited transcript from Kamala’s sit-down interview. We call upon 60 Minutes and CBS to release it.“

    Trump also posted about it on Truth Social, writing “I’ve never seen this before, but the producers of 60 Minutes sliced and diced (“cut and pasted”) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions, which were virtually incoherent, over and over again, some by as many as four times in a single sentence or thought…” Trump suggested that the network helping Harris may have been a “major Campaign Finance Violation,” and is a “stain on the reputation of 60 minutes that is not recoverable.”

    Of course, why not demand they release the footage?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 22:10

  • Latest Kamala Word Salad Drops
    Latest Kamala Word Salad Drops

    Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

    During an appearance at a ‘Christian center’ service in North Carolina, Kamala Harris was supposed to speak about faith, but ended up confusing everyone with yet another verbal mish mash of nonsense.

    She was talking about hurricanes and how such devastation can lead some to question their faith, when she said the following.

    “In times of crisis, and we’re looking at the images of the aftermath of the hurricane, but, it is easy in these moments of crisis to sometimes question our faith. To sometimes lose our faith for a moment.”

    Then came the kicker.

    “What we see is so hard to see that we lose faith or a vision of those things we cannot see but must know.”

    What?

    Can we have some fries instead of the salad please.

    Pretty sure this isn’t a quote from the Bible.

    Is there a translator here who speaks gibberish?

    It was almost as cringe as her inspirational moment.

    Actual Christians had some thoughts.

    A new accent was also unlocked during the event:

    The SNL version of Harris is more coherent than the actual Kamala.

    *  *  *

    Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 21:45

  • Spy Drones Swarmed Langley Air Base, Pentagon Unable To Counter Threat
    Spy Drones Swarmed Langley Air Base, Pentagon Unable To Counter Threat

    Since the start of the 21st century, America’s defense spending has soared nearly 50%, with this year’s budget surpassing $841 billion. Yet, despite being the world’s largest military spender, the Pentagon alarmingly struggles to protect the homeland against the rising threat of spy drones operating within US borders. 

    A new Wall Street Journal report said a fleet of spy drones swarmed some of America’s most sensitive national-security sites, including Langley Air Force Base on Virginia’s shoreline late last year.

    For several nights, military personnel had reported a mysterious breach of restricted airspace over a stretch of land that has one of the largest concentrations of national-security facilities in the US. The show usually starts 45 minutes to an hour after sunset, another senior leader told Kelly.

    The first drone arrived shortly. Kelly, a career fighter pilot, estimated it was roughly 20 feet long and flying at more than 100 miles an hour, at an altitude of roughly 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Other drones followed, one by one, sounding in the distance like a parade of lawn mowers.

    The drones headed south, across Chesapeake Bay, toward Norfolk, Va., and over an area that includes the home base for the Navy’s SEAL Team Six and Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest naval port. -WSJ

    US Air Force Gen. Mark Kelly told the Journal that he was stumped by reports of spy drones over Langley AFB. The Journal said the drones flew around the base and other highly sensitive military installations in the region at night for a little more than two weeks. Some officials suspected Russian or Chinese agents were conducting aerial spy operations.

    Kelly said some drones were roughly 20 feet long and flew more than 100 mph at 3,000 to 4,000 feet altitude. None of these drones were shot down because federal law prohibits the military from dispatching F-22s, F-35s, and other fighter jets to neutralize drones for ‘aerial snooping’ – unless these unmanned systems posed an ‘imminent threat.’

    Shortly after the spy drones first appeared across the Chesapeake Bay region, President Biden was briefed on the national security threat. Officials from the Defense Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Pentagon’s UFO office consulted with outside experts to understand the gravity of the situation. 

    Drone incursions into heavily restricted airspace shouldn’t be some shocker in Biden-Harris’ America, where open southern borders have flooded the nation with ten-plus million illegal aliens, some of which have been terrorists, spies, prison gangs from South America, and other violent criminals. 

    WSJ noted that Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall spoke with other White House officials about deploying anti-drone guns to jam signals, yet did not because of the fear of disrupting local civilian communication networks. Another idea officials had to counter this threat was directed energy weapons, and again, weren’t deployed for fear of harming commercial jets. 

    Authorities mostly ruled out the possibility of amateur drone pilots.

    In early January, a Chinese student who attended the University of Minnesota was caught flying a drone near Langley AFB. The FBI found the Chinese student had drone footage of Navy ships docked at the base. He was arrested and charged with unlawfully taking photos of classified naval installations after trying to flee the country. 

    The takeaway here is that this is an amazing display of incompetence by the military and federal government as those in the highest levels of power focus on a disastrous “woke” agenda that is weakening the nation from within. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 21:20

  • DOJ Sues Virginia For Purging Voter Rolls Close To Election
    DOJ Sues Virginia For Purging Voter Rolls Close To Election

    Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Virginia on Oct. 11, alleging that the state violated federal law by removing potential noncitizen voters from the rolls too close to the general election.

    Voters work on their ballots at a polling station at the Elena Bozeman Government Center in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 20, 2024. AFP via Getty Images

    In a court filing, the DOJ alleged that Virginia’s voter removal program violated the “Quiet Period Provision” in the National Voter Registration Act, which requires that states complete their programs for removing ineligible voters from active rolls no later than 90 days before an election.

    “Congress adopted the National Voter Registration Act’s quiet period restriction to prevent error-prone, eleventh hour efforts that all too often disenfranchise qualified voters,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement.

    The complaint, filed on Oct. 11, also named the state Board of Elections and Virginia Commissioner of Elections Susan Beals as defendants.

    According to the complaint, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order in August requiring the commissioner to certify that daily updates to the state’s voter lists were being conducted.

    These updates involved comparing the list of individuals identified as noncitizens by the State Department of Motor Vehicles “to the list of existing registered voters,” the DOJ stated.

    Local registrars were then required to notify those voters that they needed to affirm their citizenship within 14 days or they would be removed from the list of registered voters, according to the Justice Department.

    The DOJ said the process has resulted in U.S. citizens having their voter registrations canceled. The state removed 6,303 individuals from the rolls between January 2022 and July 2024, according to the complaint.

    It further alleged that local registrars had no discretion to prevent the cancellation of voters who fail to return “an affirmation of citizenship” even if they have reason to believe that those voters are U.S. citizens.

    “This systematic voter removal program, which the State is conducting within 90 days of the upcoming federal election, violates the Quiet Period Provision,” the DOJ said in a statement.

    Youngkin criticized the Biden administration for filing the lawsuit with less than 30 days before the election and said that he had “appropriately” enforced the law.

    The Republican governor called the DOJ’s lawsuit “unprecedented” and said it was a “politically motivated” attempt to interfere with the state election, according to a statement issued by his office on Oct. 11.

    “Virginians—and Americans—will see this for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy of the elections in the Commonwealth, the very crucible of American Democracy,” Youngkin stated.

    “With the support of our Attorney General, we will defend these commonsense steps, that we are legally required to take, with every resource available to us.”

    The DOJ filed a similar lawsuit against the state of Alabama and its Secretary of State on Sept. 27 over the state’s program that was aimed at removing ineligible voters, including noncitizens, from active rolls. It stated that Alabama announced the launch of the voter roll purge program 84 days before the Nov. 5 general election, which violated the National Voter Registration Act.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 20:55

  • Traders Increasingly Focused On US Election As Trump Odds Soar
    Traders Increasingly Focused On US Election As Trump Odds Soar

    Having ignored the election for far too long, rates traders are starting to price in US election risks to Treasury and volatility markets, according to Goldman strategists who continue to recommend shorting 10-year TSYs versus German bunds. Meanwhile, Citi took profit on a long breakevens position, while BMO looks to enter the trade should rates fall to more favorable buying levels.

    As a reminder, now that the Nov 5 election has entered the 30-day “catalyst window” of the VIX…

    … the VIX remains stubbornly high, and in fact as Goldman trader Brian Garrett noted recently, it is extremely rare to see the VIX print above 20 when the S&P hits a new all time high as it just did.

    A big reason for this is that the market is finally starting to sweat the outcome of the Nov 5 election, which at least until very recently, it would blissfully pretend doesn’t matter.

    But before we take a look at how equity traders are assessing the election, here is a snapshot of what Wall Street’s rates traders and strategists are saying:

    Bank of America (Mark Cabana, Meghan Swiber and others, Oct. 11  report, available to pro subscribers)

    • Maintains dip-buying stance and real steepeners bias, favors adding duration with 10-year trading between 4% to 4.25%; five-year the preferred tenor
    • “We prefer to allocate to longs at the belly vs back end of the curve as election remains a risk” while “We recommend holding off on adding to duration further out the curve until we pass peak election risk”

    Barclays (Anshul Pradhan and others, Oct. 10 report, available to pro subscribers)

    • Keeps view to pay 5y5y USD versus EUR rates (via OIS vs. ESTR, entered at 80bp): “US far forward rates still do not appear to be pricing in enough term premium, and EUR far forwards should reflect the risk of a low neutral rate”
    • “All in all, the data argue against the need for a material easing beyond some further re-calibration, and Fedspeak implies risks are skewed towards over-easing”

    BMO Capital Markets (Ian Lyngen and Vail Hartman, Oct. 11 report)

    • Stays in 2s10s steepener (entered at 9.8bp, currently around 14bp) but were stopped out of 2s30s steepener
    • Looks to enter long 10-year breakevens in the event they fall below 223bp, the close on Oct. 4 jobs report day
    • “With CPI and PPI in hand, our read is that the September inflation profile has solidified expectations for a 25 bp rate cut next month” while “there is a very high bar for the remaining pre-Fed data to truly put a pause on the table for the November FOMC meeting”

    Citi (Jabaz Mathai and others, Oct. 11 report, available to pro subs)

    • Takes profit on long 10-year breakeven position around 2.342%, writing “The Treasury curve is now back to levels that are more consistent with a realistic assessment of benign/soft landing vs. hard landing probabilities for the economy”
    • Upside data surprises like September CPI “raise the likelihood of a skip this year if payrolls don’t deteriorate into year-end. The Fed will in all likelihood go 25bp in November, as monetary policy is still quite some distance away from neutral”

    Goldman Sachs (William Marshall and others, Oct. 11 report, available to pro subs)

    • Maintains recommendation to be short 10-year Treasuries versus bunds, “which we think is positioned well for our baseline but can also benefit if the market presses on election-related risks (either fiscal or tariff-related)”
    • Traders and vol market are increasingly focused on US election with most key data risks behind us (save for October jobs report)
    • “Shorter expiry vol on longer term yields has richened on the surface since the start of the month, likely reflecting a combination of uncertainty shifting away from the very near-term Fed path towards terminal rate considerations, as well as a greater focus on post-election risks”

    TD Securities (Gennadiy Goldberg and others, Oct. 11 report)

    • Re-enters 5s30s steepeners, prompted by several reasons including:
      • Easing inflation and jobs momentum hints at more gradual cuts ahead
      • Less prohibitive carry
      • Election uncertainty
    • “We remain of the view that labor market dynamics are likely to continue driving policy decisions by the FOMC in the near term”

    While rates strategists are dignified, nuanced creatures, stock traders, on the other hand, are simpler brutes, and here things are somewhat easier. Indeed, one can see a dramatic reversal with Goldman’s Republican Victory basket – a proxy for Trump’s odds – surging in recent days to new all time highs, while the Democrat Victory basket – a proxy for president Kamala – sinking.

    Indeed, with just weeks to go until the election showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, odds are increasingly shifting in Trump’s favor: “A Trump victory would likely be positive for risk sentiment, though more for US assets at the expense of Europe and rest of the world,” Kumar said. “In our view, the environment remains broadly positive for risky assets.”

    And while public polls remain irrevocably politicized, with massive Democrat oversampling still skewing results grotesquely to the point where most polls are meaningless – although even here we are seeing a massive surge in support for the former president with the latest poll by MSM flagbearer NBC showing Kamala’s 5 point lead evaporate…

    … in far more accurate online betting markets, Trump’s spread over Kamala on Polymarket is now the highest it has been and is approaching Trump’s blowout odds observed against Joe Biden…

    … before he was put out of his dementia misery, and forced to pull out of the race by Nancy Pelosi.

    d

    In its latest Weekly Rundown note (available to pro subscribers), Goldman advised clients to position themselves ahead of the election: “Buy GSP24REP if you expect a Republican sweep or Buy GSP24DEM if you expect a democratic sweep.“

    Some more from Goldman: “The sensitivity of our Republican Policy Outperformers (GS24REPL) to election events since this summer implies the it could move +8% if Trump wins the presidential election%. Over the summer, investors have tactically traded around election events and have shortly unwound their trades.”

    And the punchline: “Considering we are only ~1 month away from election day, we notice a shift in focus: our client near-term outlook depends on the election outcome and they are becoming more comfortable positioning themselves accordingly.”

    While some have speculated that whether Trump or Kamala wins, it doesn’t really matter unless there is a sweep, the reality is that while the market was frowning on the odds of either party winning both the House and the Senate, in the past few days we have seen a surge of Republican sweep odds, with Polymarket traders now assigning 39% odds, rapidly approaching the July record highs.

    Finally, it’s not just Goldman: UBS writes that as recent election poll results seem to be shifting in favor of the Republican party, the bank’s Republican Win basket continued outperform the Democratic Win basket (BBG index UBPTREDE) by 2.4% on Monday, marking almost 6% over the past five sessions.”

    In other words, while questionable mainstream media polls do everything in their power to convince the marginal voter that Kamala is still in the lead, online betting markets and Wall Street traders have clearly taken the other side of the bet.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 20:30

  • Hurricane Response Proves Volunteerism Is Better Than Authoritarianism
    Hurricane Response Proves Volunteerism Is Better Than Authoritarianism

    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

    Following Hurricane Helene, many private helicopter pilots launched their own search and rescue missions. One would think government officials would welcome the help of these volunteers, but instead they harassed them and even threatened to arrest them!

    For example, one private helicopter pilot rescued an individual stranded by Helene. Unfortunately, he was threatened with arrest if he flew his helicopter back into the impacted area to save someone left behind on the earlier flight.

    In a video shared by comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore, Jonathan Howard, a member of the Florida State Guard and volunteer for the nonprofit group Aerial Recovery, discussed how the government took credit for the rescue of an 11-day-old baby even though the rescue was done totally by volunteers. Mr. Howard stated that when he goes on a search and rescue mission he sees around forty other private helicopters and just two military helicopters.

    One reason the federal government is unable to provide adequate aid to those impacted by Helene (and now Milton) is the government is sending military aid worth billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel. In fact, over 700 members of the Tennessee National Guard are deploying to the Middle East as people in the state deal with damage from Hurricane Helene!

    When questioned on Fox News about Helene’s impact, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham made an impassioned plea …. for more aid to Israel. Senator Graham is far from the only member of Congress to put the needs of foreign countries and the military-industrial complex ahead of Americans.

    Congress will likely consider a multi-billion-dollar disaster relief bill in the post-election “lame duck” session. Conservative Republicans will (properly) demand the spending be offset by cuts in other spending. The problem is most of these “fiscal conservatives” will vote to increase the national debt to fund the military-industrial-complex.

    When I served in Congress, I voted against federal disaster aid even when the disaster impacted my district. Inevitably my office would receive complaints from outraged constituents. After a few months of jumping through the federal government’s bureaucratic hoops in seeking to recover from the disaster, many constituents would call my office to say that they now agree that they would be better off if the government would stop trying to “help” the victims of natural disasters.

    One of the helicopter pilots who voluntarily flew into the areas impacted by Helene was Curves fitness chain founder Gary Heavin. Mr. Heavin, in addition to being a successful businessman, is a passionate advocate for liberty who serves on the advisory board of my Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is not surprising that someone who believes in liberty would be willing to help those in need rather than rely on the government to provide assistance.

    Contrary to the lies spread by authoritarians, libertarianism does not require selfishness. Libertarians welcome voluntary action to help those in need. Libertarians object to government assistance because it is based on force. Authoritarianism leads to poverty, war, chaos in the streets, and a lack of compassion for the less fortunate. Liberty leads to prosperity, peace, and a flourishing of private charities.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 20:05

  • Mapping Global Real Estate Bubble Risks
    Mapping Global Real Estate Bubble Risks

    In many major cities, real home prices have declined as high interest rates are dampening demand.

    Simultaneously, property markets are slowing due to tough financing conditions and rising construction costs. As a result, housing bubble risks have eased in cities like Hong Kong, London, and New York. However, strong demand in the luxury market and a booming stock market are fueling bubble risks in cities like Miami and Los Angeles.

    This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the cities with the highest real estate bubble risk, based on the UBS Global Real Estate Bubble Index 2024.

    Methodology

    To analyze real estate bubble risk, UBS looked at the following factors across 25 major cities:

    • Price-to-income ratio

    • Price-to-rent ratio

    • Change in mortgage-to-GDP ratio

    • Change in construction-to-GDP ratio

    • City-to-country price ratio

    More specifically, bubble risk refers to the likelihood of a significant price correction due to distortions in global property markets

    Miami Ranks Highest for Housing Bubble Risk

    With real housing prices increasing nearly 50% since the end of 2019, Miami has the highest bubble risk across cities analyzed.

    This has pushed the price-to-income ratio higher, as buyers compete for limited waterfront luxury properties. At the same time, the city’s relative affordability compared to other major U.S. metros, along with no state income tax and a favorable climate, has fueled demand.

    Ranking in second is Tokyo, one of the most unaffordable cities in the world.

    Ultra-loose monetary policy and economic stability has contributed to high property valuations in Tokyo. Last year, a 646 square foot apartment cost 15 times more than an average skilled worker’s salary, exceeding levels seen in London and New York.

    Although Dubai hasn’t entered bubble territory, home prices surged 17% between Q2 2023 and Q2 2024—the fastest increase among the cities analyzed. Over the past year, the city saw record transaction volumes and strong population growth as buyers flocked to this global financial hub.

    By contrast, a number of cities saw their bubble risk decline as real home values dropped, including London, Hong Kong, Paris, and Toronto.

    To learn more about this topic from a housing affordability perspective, check out this graphic on the least affordable property markets around the world.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 19:40

  • Cut The Truth Out Of Our Heads
    Cut The Truth Out Of Our Heads

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

    The censors are losing patience. They have gone from regretting the existence of free speech and gaming the system as best they can to fantasizing about ending it through criminal penalties. 

    You can observe this change in temperament – from frustration to fury to calling for violent solutions – over the last several weeks. And it serves as a reminder: censorship was never the end point. It was always about controlling society’s “cognitive infrastructure,” which is how we think. And to what end? A secure monopoly on political power. 

    This week, Fox reporter Peter Doocy was sparring with the White House spokesperson over whether FEMA is funding migrants even as it cannot help American storm survivors. She immediately shot back and called this “disinformation.” Peter wanted to know what part of his question qualified. Jean-Pierre said it was the whole context of the question and otherwise never said. 

    It was clear to anyone who was watching that the term “disinformation” means to her nothing other than a premise or fact that is unwelcome and needs to be shut down. This messaging has been further reinforced by a Harris/Walz ad blaming unnamed “misinformation” from Trump for exacerbating hurricane suffering following Hurricane Helene. 

    This exchange came only days after Hillary Clinton suggested criminal penalties for disinformation, else “they will lose total control.” It’s an odd plural pronoun because, presumably, she is not in control..unless she regards herself as a proxy for an entire class of rulers. 

    Meanwhile, former presidential candidate John Kerry said the existence of free speech is making government impossible. Kamala Harris herself has sworn to “hold social media accountable” for the “hate infiltrating their platforms.” And well-connected physician Peter Hotez is calling for Homeland Security and NATO to put an end to debates over vaccines

    You can detect the fury in all their voices, almost as if every post on X or video on Rumble is causing them to lose their minds, to the point that they are just saying it out loud: “Make them stop.”

    Hurricane Milton seems to have caused the censors to flip out in a violent rage, as people wondered whether and to what extent the government might have something to do with manipulating the weather for political reasons. A writer in the Atlantic explodes: “I’m running out of ways to explain how bad this is. What’s happening in America today is something darker than a misinformation crisis,” while decrying “outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet.”

    Catch that? It’s the viewing itself that is the problem, as if people do not have the capacity to think for themselves. 

    The old meme of the man staying up late typing because “someone is wrong on the Internet” applies now to an entire swath of the ruling class. They want freedom out and the stakeholders in control, somehow forcing the whole of the digital age into a version of 1970s television with three channels and 1-800 numbers. The Biden administration even refounded the Internet, replacing the Declaration of Freedom with a new Declaration of the Future.

    We are reminded of Katherine Hepburn’s performance as Violet Venable in Tennessee Williams’s play Suddenly, Last Summer. 

    Violet is an heiress and widow with a son Sebastian on whom she doted and with whom she traveled internationally for many years. One summer, her niece Catherine (played by Elizabeth Taylor) goes on the trip instead and the son dies. 

    Catherine was clearly traumatized by something but she doesn’t know what. But this much remained in her memory: Sebastian was not a good man. Instead he used the women who accompanied him as bait to procure boys for his sexual pleasure. 

    Violet was so infuriated with this observation – all she could remember about Sebastian’s death –  that she sent Catherine to a mental hospital. She further has every intention of endowing a local hospital to specialize in lobotomies on the condition that they give one to Catherine. 

    Violet wants Catherine to stop her “babblings” and instead “just be peaceful.” Catherine observes that they simply want to cut the truth out of her head before she comes around to recalling the whole of it, which is more horrible than one can imagine. 

    Doctor: “There still is a great deal of risk.”

    Violet: “But it does pacify them, I’ve read that. It quiets them down. It suddenly makes them peaceful.”

    Doctor: “Yes, that it does do, but…”

    Her goal was an invasive surgery on her sister’s daughter, which she was willing to fund in order to assure it would take place by a major gift in the guise of philanthropy. It was all in the interest of psychological self-protection. 

    Violet simply did not want to know the truth. She wanted instead her own “truth” to be the constructed narrative: her son was a wonderful and pious gentleman and her niece was a crazy person, a deplorable, a speaker of misinformation and disinformation. 

    In order to protect Violet’s own self-perceptions and her own delusion, she was willing to invade the brain of her own niece with a knife to stop her from clear thinking and clear speaking. 

    Catherine: “Cut the truth out of my brain. Is that what you want? You can’t. Not even God can change the truth.”

    As with all of Tennessee Williams, and all great literature, the story is about far more than what it seems. It is really about the lengths to which a wealthy ruling class is willing to go in order to prevent the puncturing of their own illusions about the world. 

    In those days, lobotomies were more common, even approved, and often deployed by those who could afford them to be imposed on relatives. The stories are quite legendary, so there was nothing unrealistic about Williams’s story. Psycho-surgery was deployed for decades in the service of cutting truth out of people’s brains. 

    So far we’ve only experienced a relatively low-grade version of this compared with what they really want. YouTube accounts have been demonetized and deleted. Facebook posts have been throttled and banned. LinkedIn’s algorithms punish posts that take issue with regime narratives. This has not slowed down in light of litigation but rather continued and intensified. 

    The goal is to close up the Internet. They would have done it by now if it were not for the First Amendment, which stands in their way. For now, they will continue to work through university cutouts, third-party providers, phony baloney fact-checkers, pressure on tech firms that provide government services at a price, and other mechanisms to achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly just yet. 

    Among the strategies is the political persecution of dissenters. Alex Jones is a bellwether here and his company is being bankrupted. Steve Bannon, the philosopher king of MAGA, has been in jail for the entire election season for having defied a Congressional subpoena on the advice of counsel. The protestors on January 6 have been in prison not for damages caused or trespassing but for landing on the wrong side of the regime. 

    Most of us had an intuition that the Covid vaccine mandates themselves were not entirely about health but rather a tactic of exclusion of those who were not fully trusting of authority. This was rather obvious when it came to the military and the medical profession but less apparent within academia where noncompliant students and professors were effectively purged for their refusal to risk their lives for pharma. 

    There was an element of malice, too, in the mask mandates. Even though there was zero scientific evidence that a Chinese-made synthetic cloth worn on the face can change epidemiological dynamics, they did serve well as a visible sign to separate believers from unbelievers, and also as a sadistic means of reminding individualists of who is really running the show. 

    The final means of censorship is violence against person and property, while the end is to control what you think in service of one-party rule. Major tech companies and major media are wholly complicit in bringing this about. Only a handful of services are stopping this and they are all being targeted by the regime through myriad forms of lawfare. 

    In the final scenes of Suddenly, Last Summer, Catherine is finally induced to recall the horrifying details of her cousin’s death and tell family members the fullness of the truth. Aunt Violet cannot handle it and defaults into denial and psychopathology herself, dishing out her own litany of disinformation. 

    Therein the viewer is presented with the deepest irony of all: every claim that Violet made against Catherine eventually comes to pertain to Violet herself. The person who wanted to use violence to cut the brain out of the truthspeaker was merely protecting herself against a terrible truth that she could not handle. 

    And there it is: it’s the liar more than anyone who has reason to fear free speech.

    *  *  *

    Postscript: as this article is released, the website archive.org has been fully down for the better part of a week, supposedly due to a catastrophic DDOS attack. The private owners say the data has been saved and it will be restored in time. Maybe. But consider: this the one tool we have for having a verified memory of what was posted when. It is how we found that WHO changed its definition of herd immunity. It’s how we found that the CDC was behind the mail-in ballot fiasco of 2020. It’s how we know that FTX funded anti-Ivermectin studies. And so on. The links were stable and good, never down. 

    Until now, two weeks before the election. We are of course supposed to believe that this shocking collapse is purely a coincidence. Maybe. Probably. And yet without this website – a central point of failure – vast amounts of the history of the last quarter century is deleted. The entire contents of the web can be re-written as vaporware, here one instant, gone the next. Even if this site does come back, what will be missing and how long will it take to figure it out? Will the Internet have been lobotomized? If not this time, could it happen in the future? Certainly. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 19:15

  • Russia Says Ukraine Kidnapped Over 1000 Kursk Residents, Seeks Whereabouts
    Russia Says Ukraine Kidnapped Over 1000 Kursk Residents, Seeks Whereabouts

    The Kremlin has issued a formal accusation saying Ukraine’s military has captured and is holding over 1,000 Kursk residents against their will, since launching the cross-border offensive in early August.

    Russia’s presidential human rights commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova said Monday, “I’ve received messages regarding more than 1,000 such people from relatives trying to find them.”

    Via AFP: Displaced people receive humanitarian aid at a Russian Red Cross distribution point in Kursk.

    “We know nothing about their fate. This is a gross violation of their rights and international norms of treatment of civilians,” Moskalkova added. She said she plans to raise the issue directly with the Ukrainian government.

    “I think it would be useful to remind you that the forced removal of civilians from their places of permanent residence is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention,” Moskalkova continued (according to machine translation). “And the world community should probably give this a proper assessment.”

    Russia has estimated that since the start of the Ukrainian army’s attack on its southwest border region, over 112,000 residents have been displaced from their homes. 

    Social media videos have often confirmed that amid the Ukrainian troop invasion a number of Russians have remained – often elderly people have been spotted, perhaps unable to flee.

    Moskalkova has identified that over 12,000 of the displaced Russians are living at temporary displacement shelters in various parts of Russia. Other have been forced to stay with relatives in safe parts of Russia.

    Ukraine has claimed that its forces are treating Russian civilians in captured territory humanely. In September Kiev requested that teams from United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) come in and verify the situation in areas of Russia’s Kursk.

    Moscow has complained about such requests, arguing that any international organization or even media must coordinate with the Kremlin before stepping foot on Russian sovereign territory. For example, Russia has issued charges targeting a CNN team that crossed the border while embedded with Ukrainian troops.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has said that the UN and Red Cross invitation was intended to “prove [Ukraine’s] adherence to international humanitarian law.”

    Meanwhile, Kiev has accused Russian troops of conducting mass executions as it fights Ukrainians in Kursk:

    Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman has denounced the alleged execution of nine captured Ukrainian troops by Russian forces in the Kursk border region.

    Dmytro Lubinets said he had written to the United Nations and the Red Cross about the allegations, accusing Moscow of breaching “all the rules and customs of war”.

    The intervention follows reporting by Ukrainian battlefield analysis site DeepState, which published drone footage purporting to show the dead troops who it said were drone operators. Officials in Russia have yet to comment on the allegations.

    Over the weekend President Zelensky said that his forces continue to “hold the line” in Kursk. But analysts agree that the Kursk operation has no impact on front lines in the Donbass, where pro-Kiev forces are losing ground.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 18:50

  • Michigan Republicans Prevail In Election Integrity Lawsuit Over Number Of Poll Workers
    Michigan Republicans Prevail In Election Integrity Lawsuit Over Number Of Poll Workers

    Authored by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times,

    Michigan Republican officials have secured a win in an election integrity lawsuit against the city of Detroit over “its deliberate failure” to hire enough Republican election inspectors.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC), the Michigan GOP, and the Wayne County Republican committee chairs announced that the city had agreed to modify its election protocols to hire “at least one Republican poll worker in each location,” in a settlement of the lawsuit.

    In August, the RNC and other entities sued the city, alleging that it violated a state law that requires election officials to hire an equal number of poll workers on both sides of the political aisle.

    The city, the lawsuit alleges, hired seven times as many Democrats as Republicans, which the RNC said decreases public trust in elections.

    According to the complaint, the Republican Party nominated 675 election inspectors; however, the city only appointed 52 of them for the primary election.

    The city hired up to 250 Republicans who were not nominated by the RNC, leaving a ratio of seven Democrats to one Republican inspector, which the RNC said was “not even close to equal.”

    In comparison, the city hired more than 2,300 election inspectors from the Democratic Party.

    “This uneven distribution of poll workers not only breaches state law but also undermines the integrity and fairness of the electoral process,” the RNC said in an August press release. “Our lawsuit demands that Detroit appoint more Republican inspectors.”

    In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment, the City of Detroit’s corporation counsel, Conrad Mallett, said: “The modest extra steps we agreed to take were not complicated and not required by law. They were put in place as part of a continuing effort to ensure our citizens respect and have confidence in our election process and to demonstrate that our city clerk listens to all concerns.”

    RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said the win will return “much-needed transparency and accountability” to the city’s election protocols.

    “Thanks to the efforts of the RNC and Michigan GOP, Detroit will now change its election processes so that Republican poll workers will be allocated to all voting locations and, as nearly as possible, an equal number of Republicans will be hired this November,” Whatley said.

    The RNC’s Michigan lawsuits are part of a larger legal battle for election integrity in the state.

    In July, the RNC won a lawsuit to protect signature verification requirements that election officials had been instructed to disregard.

    “The signatures of absentee ballot voters have to and should be verified—it’s common sense,” state Republican Party Chairman Pete Hoekstra said in a statement. “Michigan is crucial to the pathway to victory in November. We must protect and enforce all our election laws to maintain confidence in our system.”

    In March, the RNC filed a lawsuit alleging that state election officials are violating federal law by not maintaining voter registration records.

    “Election integrity starts with clean voter rolls, and that’s why the National Voter Registration Act requires state officials to keep their rolls accurate and up-to-date,” Hoekstra said.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 18:25

  • Quid Pro Quo Revealed: Netanyahu Vows He Won't Strike Iranian Oil Or Nuclear Targets
    Quid Pro Quo Revealed: Netanyahu Vows He Won’t Strike Iranian Oil Or Nuclear Targets

    A full two weeks have passed since Iran’s October 1st ballistic missile attack on Israel, which involved some 200 projectiles, many of which caused destruction on the ground (though Israel has been tight-lipped on the extent of it).

    The big question has remained: when will Israel retaliate and what form will it take? The Biden administration has over the last many days reportedly been urging for Israel to avoid hitting nuclear sites as well as energy sites. But there have been conflicting reports.

    For example on Monday, Harper’s Magazine editor Andrew Cockburn wrote, “Word in Washington is that Biden has approved Israeli strike on Iran’s Natanz nuclear site.”

    However, within hours after this speculative statement on X, The Washington Post reported that Israel is walking back from the prospect of bombing oil as well as nuclear facilities.

    “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the Biden administration he is willing to strike military rather than oil or nuclear facilities in Iran, according to two officials familiar with the matter, suggesting a more limited counterstrike aimed at preventing a full-scale war,” the Monday afternoon report said.

    President Biden in a phone call with PM Netanyahu last Wednesday reportedly conveyed serious concern that any counterstrikes could lead to all-out war if not kept ‘limited’.

    Monday’s afternoon WaPo headline was enough to send oil prices falling, also after morning reports of China’s weak demand…

    At the time of last week’s phone call, Netanyahu had reportedly expressed that he favors attacks on the Islamic Republic’s military infrastructure.

    The Washington Post now appears to be chalking this up as a win for Biden diplomacy:

    Netanyahu was in a “more moderated place” in that discussion than he had previously been, said the U.S. official, describing the call between the two leaders.

    The apparent softening of the prime minister’s stance factored into Biden’s decision to send a powerful missile defense system to Israel, both officials said.

    So the quid pro quo becomes clear… this is in reference to weekend reports saying the US is sending the THAAD anti-air missile defense system to Israel, for protection against Iran, which will include US troop operators. 

    However, at a moment that Israel is already engaged militarily on several fronts, especially in Lebanon with Iran-backed Hezbollah, absolutely nothing is certain.

    There remain plenty of hawks in Bibi’s security cabinet who are urging Israel to go big in its response. It is also the case that Netanyahu has been talking about taking out Iran’s nuclear program for many years at this point.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 18:00

  • Kamala: "This Election Is Packed With Some Stuff"
    Kamala: “This Election Is Packed With Some Stuff”

    Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

    Kamala Harris proved once again Friday that she is in way beyond her depth, telling a crowd that the election is “packed with some stuff,” and then laughing inanely.

    “So when we think about what’s at stake in this election…Whoa, it’s packed with some stuff!” Harris said, breaking into weird over the top laughter.

    “It’s packed with some fundamental stuff! HA HA HA! I say rather articulately!” She then blathered.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Did her teleprompter break again?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Elsewhere during the speech, she claimed that Donald Trump is going to weaponise the DOJ against his political opponents.

    Rings a bell.

    She also bragged about her leadership skills and her ability to bring people together in her office, despite the fact that nearly everyone who has worked for her in the past four years has rage quit.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    She has no coherent policies and never says anything of any substance.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    She cannot think on her feet. How bad would that be if she somehow becomes the president of the country?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It really is a Trump must win situation.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Idiocracy is in danger of looking desirable compared to this.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Or Veep.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    To quote tampon Tim Walz, We can’t afford another four years of this.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 17:40

  • NYT Lies To Downplay 'Racist' Kamala Plagiarism Scandal – So Chris Rufo Brings Receipts
    NYT Lies To Downplay ‘Racist’ Kamala Plagiarism Scandal – So Chris Rufo Brings Receipts

    Update (1745ET): After journalist Chris Rufo relayed the results of an in-depth analysis proving that Kamala Harris plagiarized ‘at least a dozen’ sections of her book on crime, the NY Times scrambled into damage control mode. First, they framed it as ‘conservative notices.’

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    They then completely lied about Rufo’s reporting. So of course, Rufo hit back.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full response below:

    1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized “five sections” involving “about 500 words.” But this isn’t true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are “more than a dozen” instances of “‘vicious plagiarism.'” This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are “more than a dozen,” but with Weber’s full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it “not serious.” They could have easily confirmed the “more than a dozen” point, but instead, lied by omission.

    2. The Times claims that “none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer.” This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people’s work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times’s claim doesn’t hold up at all; it’s just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:

    3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:

    But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word “additional”

    4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris’s plagiarism is somehow “racist,” even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was “racist.” This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is “seiz[ing] on” a transgression that is “not serious”—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.

    My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we’re going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.

    In short, bitch please.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    Kamala Harris’ plagiarism apparently goes far beyond Trump and Biden‘s economic plans.

    In a Monday thread on X by investigative journalist Christopher Rufo, we learn that famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Dr. Stefan Weber found that “Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book, Smart on Crime,” and “even lifted material from Wikipedia.“

    Continued from X;

    In another section of the book, Harris, without proper attribution, reproduced extensive sections from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release. She and her co-author passed off the language as their own, copying multiple paragraphs virtually verbatim. Here is the excerpt, with abbreviations, such as percentages and state names, treated as verbatim substitutions:

    In a section about a New York court program, Harris stole long passages directly from Wikipedia—long considered an unreliable source. She not only assumes the online encyclopedia’s accuracy, but copies its language nearly verbatim, without citing the source. Here is Harris’s language, based on the page as it appeared in December 2008, before she published the book:

    Harris also copied language from a Bureau of Justice Assistance report report, which was linked in the the Wikipedia entry. Here is the passage in Harris’s book, with duplicated material in the other column:

    Finally, when attempting to write a description of a nonprofit group, Harris simply lifted promotional language from an Urban Institute report, and failed to cite her source:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 17:36

  • China New Credit Data Is A Disappointing Mess, Sparking Speculation Of QE
    China New Credit Data Is A Disappointing Mess, Sparking Speculation Of QE

    Two weeks ago, when the world was still enamored with Jim Cramer’s idiotic idea that Chinese stonks can magically double in just a few weeks simply because Beijing had some soothing words to say and because when it comes to greater fools, China has more than anyone else, and when Goldman laughably upgraded Chinese stocks after the 30% runup had already taken place,we warned that the party was about to end…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    … for one simple reason: as we said in “Why China’s Rally Won’t Have Legs“, China would be unable to recreate previous reflationary episodes simply because Beijing would not be able to recreate the credit impulse explosion that rebooted the Chinese economy during previous downturns, in 2012, 2015 and 2020.

    Specifically, this is what we said:

    In the 2015 stimulus cycle, China’s credit impulse peaked at 13.5 trillion yuan, equivalent to over 15 percent of GDP. Given that China’s nominal economy is now twice as large, an equivalent stimulus would need the credit impulse to peak at 27 trillion yuan (Chart 2).

    At its most recent peak though, China’s credit impulse did not even reach 5 trillion yuan! Meaning that to compare with the 2015 episode, the just-announced stimulus cycle would need an amplitude five times greater than the most recent peak.

    This would require a major reversal of the downtrend in stimulus cycles through the past two decades. After the credit impulse peaked at a monster 25 percent of GDP in 2009, subsequent peaks have reached 15 percent, 15 percent, 10 percent, and just 3 percent. This is significant because as the peak impulse has dwindled, so has the boost to growth (Chart 3 and Chart 4).

    We bring this up because earlier today China published its latest, September, credit data, and it was a mess: the broadest credit aggregate, total social financing (TSF), as well as new RMB loans remained soft, in line with market expectations. 

    Here are the details:

    • New RMB loans: RMB 1590bn in September (RMB loans to the real economy: RMB 1973bn) vs. Bloomberg consensus: RMB 1938bn.
      • Outstanding RMB loan growth: 8.1% yoy in September; down from 8.5% yoy in August.
      • New RMB loans missed market expectations and were much lower than a year ago. The outstanding RMB loan growth declined to 8.1% yoy in September (vs. 8.5% yoy in August). In addition, the composition of new loans suggested credit demand remained weak in September. After seasonal adjustment, household loans expanded mildly by 1.7% month-over-month annualized in September (vs. 2.1% in August), with accelerated short-term loans extension. Bill financing growth remained solid (31.6% month-over-month annualized in September vs. 34.4% in August), while corporate medium-to-long term loans growth moderated to 8.6% month-over-month annualized in September (vs. 10.1% in August).
    • Total social financing: RMB 3760bn in September, in line with Bloomberg consensus: RMB 3575bn.
      • TSF stock growth: 8.0% yoy in September, down from 8.1% in August. The implied month-on-month growth of TSF stock: 8.4% in September vs. 8.4% in August.
      • TSF flows were broadly unchanged from August to September, as a rise of government bond issuance was offset by a decline of corporate bond issuance. Specifically, government bond net issuance rose to RMB 1349bn vs. RMB 1174bn in August after seasonal adjustment, while corporate bond net issuance fell to RMB -41bn in September after seasonal adjustment vs. RMB 85bn in August. In year-over-year terms, TSF stock growth edged down to 8.0% from 8.1% in August. The implied sequential growth of TSF stock was unchanged at 8.4% mom sa annualized in September.
    • M2: 6.8% yoy in September vs. Bloomberg consensus: 6.4% yoy, August: 6.3% yoy; more ominously, M1 growth edged down to -7.4% yoy in September, vs. -7.3% yoy in August.

    According to Goldman, the September credit data indicated credit demand of private sectors remained weak: household loan growth remained low, and corporate loan growth moderated. Money supply data were mixed: M1 stock still experienced a deep contraction, but M2 growth picked up in September (as a reminder, M1 has to surpass M2 for China to even have a hope of a successful reset). The Securities Times reported that the rise of M2 growth was driven by inflows into bank deposits and margin deposits, thanks to the stock market rally in late September; of course, the subsequent drop means that M2 will promptly reverse. More importantly, the deep M1 contraction still signals likely disinflationary pressures in the coming months.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Bottom line: this was a clear step in the wrong direction for China, and Beijing’s desire to reflate the economy, and reminds us of what we said one week ago, when we quoted a Goldman trader who cautioned that unless China does QE “now”, it will ned up in a much bigger hole in 12 months, as there is just one thing that matters for China: M1 vs M2 dynamics, to wit: “If the rally has legs you need to see M1 growing faster than M2 (demand for settlement balances above demand for saving balances) and you also need to see much steeper curve.”

    Which brings us to this morning, because just hours after the latest dismal credit data was published, China’s Caixin reported that the first tentative step to full-blown QE, namely the imminent issuance of “6 trillion yuan from ultra-long special treasury bonds over three years as part of its efforts to buttress the slowing economy through fiscal stimulus.”

    Naturally, with amounts that big, the central bank will have to backstop demand, hence QE. And, as a reminder, one week ago we also said that “if China does do QE, oil will soar, and bitcoin and gold will be orders of magnitude higher once Beijing triggers then next global reflationary tsunami.” That should explain why bitcoin surged today…

    … and why it is well on its way to new all time highs again.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 17:20

  • More Than 400 North American 7-Eleven Stores To Close
    More Than 400 North American 7-Eleven Stores To Close

    Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

    Convenience store chain 7-Eleven will close hundreds of stores as the company faces declining sales at its U.S. stores.

    7-Eleven operates more than 13,000 stores across the United States and Canada. The company plans to shut down 444 “underperforming stores” as part of improving efficiency and managing cost, according to an Oct. 10 financial forecast presentation from the firm. The closures represent more than 3 percent of the company’s U.S. and Canadian stores. This is expected to generate approximately $30 million in operating income benefit for the retail chain this year.

    7-Eleven is looking to boost capital efficiency and ensure sustained business growth in North America given the “tough consumer spending environment, particularly among lower-and middle-income earners,” it said in an Oct. 10 statement.

    Challenging employment conditions, high interest rates, and inflationary pressures have led to a decline in labor incomes, according to the company.

    The firm credited the robustness of the North American economy to consumption by high-income earners, noting that middle- and lower-income groups have taken a “more prudent approach” in this regard.

    “In the six months ended August 31, 2024, merchandise sales at existing stores in the U.S. decreased year-on-year in U.S. dollars,” it stated, noting that traffic also declined.

    7-Eleven attributed this to several factors, including a large portion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, the reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the growth of online retail sales, and a cyber outage incident that affected operations.

    The firm specifically highlighted declining tobacco use as a contributing factor affecting traffic and sales. Tobacco use has fallen by 26 percent compared to 2019, the company stated.

    Cigarettes made up 21.5 percent of total convenience store sales in 2023. Circle K and 7-Eleven are the two top convenience store chains by store count, meaning that they likely already each capture the largest shares of U.S. tobacco sales, according to Don Burke, senior vice president at Management Science Associates, a market research firm.

    The market for U.S. cigarette smokers is declining after decades of warnings about health risks. Convenience stores have long dominated tobacco sales, accounting for about 70 percent of purchases.

    The planned closure of 444 stores is part of several steps being taken to ensure the long-term success of 7-Eleven outlets, according to the company. Other measures include growing proprietary foods, accelerating digital sales, and growing and enhancing store networks.

    The retail chain reduced its estimate for total store sales in the second half of 2024. The company predicted that it will “return to growth in 2025 and beyond.”

    7-Eleven is owned by Japan-based Seven & i Holdings, which has multiple other brands under it.

    7-Eleven stated that it plans on setting up “a store network of 50,000 stores in areas outside Japan and North America by the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025, and to extend our presence to 30 countries and regions including Japan and North America by the fiscal year ending December 31, 2030.”

    Buyout Attempts

    In August, Seven & i Holdings revealed that it received a buyout offer from Canada-based convenience store operator Alimentation Couche-Tard (ACT). In September, the firm announced that it rejected the offer.

    According to Seven & i Holdings, Couche-Tard proposed a $14.86-per-share cash deal, which it stated “grossly” undervalued the firm. The Japanese company determined that the transaction was not in the best interests of shareholders.

    Even if the Canadian store chain were to raise the proposed buyout value “very significantly,” the possibility of the deal getting through remains uncertain, Seven & i Holdings stated.

    Stephen Dacus, chair of Seven & i’s board, wrote a letter to Couche-Tard, clarifying that the Japanese firm remains open to any offer that recognizes their “standalone intrinsic value.”

    “However, we do not believe, for several critical reasons, that the proposal you have put forward provides a basis for us to engage in substantive discussions regarding a potential transaction,” he said.

    On Oct. 9, Seven & I Holdings stated that it received a revised, nonbinding buyout proposal from Couche-Tard.

    Seven & I Holdings “has maintained, and intends to continue to maintain, the confidentiality of its current discussions with ACT at this time.”

    “The Company will continue to act in the best interest of its shareholders and other stakeholders of the Company,” it stated.

    The Japanese firm announced recently that it plans to establish an intermediate holding company that will watch over its supermarket food business, specialty stores, and other businesses, collectively referred to as the SST Business Group. A total of 31 companies will be brought under the group.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/14/2024 – 17:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest