Posted on

Wall Street Going “All-In On Trump”

Wall Street Going "All-In On Trump"

Matt Drudge’s slide into mainstream media obscurity has been one of the more remarkable events of the post-Trump era, yet – like an insane uncle locked up in the attic – few would bring it up in polite conversation (especially since so little is known about what caused Drudge’s striking U-turn in his one-time embrace of Trump). However, his tweet (or post) from last week that according to Wall Street, Kamala had a 72 chance to win (since deleted)…

… prompted us to respond.

We were the first, but hardly last, and shortly after our response to Drudge, both Goldman and JPMorgan chimed in, with reports that validated our criticism of Drudge’s naive – and dead wrong – claim.

Later that day, JPMorgan’s closely followed Positioning Intelligence team published a must read report (available to pro subs), in which John Schlegel summarized the recent hedge fund positioning rather simply: "all-in on Trump themes."

This is how the JPM trader summarizes the findings of his report:

As odds of a Trump presidency and Red Wave have increased over the past few weeks, we’ve seen themes that are perceived to be Republican Winners (JPREPWIN) outperform Democratic Winners (JPDEMWIN) by ~7% over the past month. Crypto stocks and small caps have performed better, while Renewables have underperformed. In addition, the wider US equity market continues to make new ATHs and positioning appears to be elevated. Based on the thematic shifts, historical returns around elections, and elevated positioning, there’s room for a bit of disappointment and reversal in coming weeks if odds start to shift the other way.

In other words, the "smart market" is increasingly going all-in on a Trump victory.

Below we excerpt the main highlights from the report (much more in the full report available to professional subs):

  • 1. All in on Trump Themes? Hedge Fund flows have shown a strong preference for Republican themes with Rep Winners (JPREPWIN) bought over the past few weeks, putting positioning near ~2yr highs, while Dem Winners (JPDEMWIN) were sold throughout the year and positioning at multi-year low. The relative Rep vs. Dem flows have shifted from -2z a few weeks ago to +2z over the past 10 days. Renewables (JP11RNEW, a clear proxy for a Dem win) have been sold a lot in the past couple weeks and positioning is turning more bearish again.

  • Crypto stocks have seen volatile flows, though buying lately has not been as strong as it was in mid-July.

  • 2. Flows Turning Positive & Positioning Relatively High Ahead of Election (vs. Prior Cycles). HF and ETF flows have been turning more positive lately and 4 week HF net flows have shifted materially from -2z in early Sep to +1z most recently.

  • ETF flows tend to stay positive post elections and even in years when they’re very strong, but S&P returns are often very muted in Oct during election years since 1950 (avg +10bps with range of +2.6% to -2.7% (ex. 2008)).

  • Overall positioning level for US equities remains somewhat elevated (+1.0z, >90th %-tile) and in prior election years since 2012, both positioning and SPX returns have tended to trend lower in the weeks heading into the election.

  • 3. Small Caps and Momentum…What’s the Setup? Small Caps / Russell 2000 is perceived to rally if we get a Red Wave, but Russell 2000 futures positioning seems pretty elevated already (vs. more neutral prior to the July bump).

  • Looking at a 3yr z-score of net positioning, it’s at +2z already, in line with prior highs. ETF flows into small cap ETFs vs. the broader universe are neutral, though not as bearish as they were heading into the July rally, while HF net exp to Size factor is biased more towards Large on a multi-year basis, but not particularly so on a 12m basis.

  • Momentum tends to underperform in the 10d leading up to the election (and continues to decline on average in 3m post-election), but its performance has been quite correlated to the wider market.

  • HFs don’t appear to be running material net exposure to Momentum, but flows have shown a bias towards selling laggards lately

* * *

Turning to Goldman Sachs, we find a similar bias. As we noted last week, a Republican Sweep Scenario, has emerged as one of the bank’s preferred trades ahead of the elections. This is how Goldman put it:

Long our Republican Policy Pair (GSP24REP), consisting of long Republican Policy Outperformers (GS24REPL, ex-commods version is GS24RLXC) vs short Republican Policy Underperformers (GS24REPS)

  • Buy GS24REPL 20Dec24 107% / 117% OTC call spread for 1.30%. 7.69x net leverage. 15% delta. 23 iv. Max loss premium paid.
  • Buy GS24RLXC 20Dec24 108% / 118% OTC call spread for 1.30%. 7.69x net leverage. 16% delta. 25 iv. Max loss premium paid.

As shown below, the Goldman Republican victory pair trade discussed above just hit an all time high.

Decomposed into its constituents indexes, we find that the Republican Victory basket just hit an all time high, while the Democrat Victory basket is back to Biden levels.

In a new report from Goldman FICC vice president Vincent Mistretta (available here to pro subscribers), the trader confirms what we have said, namely that "positioning in markets leans toward Trump-win expressions. That has been the case since even before the recent run up in betting market odds for Trump."  To help its clients, the bank has come up with a dashboard enumerating these aforementioned preconceived notions, and some trades that should perform well in scenarios that feel under-positioned, underappreciated or are anti-consensus.

GS Trading Views:

  • Anshul Sehgal (Co-Head of Global Interest Rate Products Trading & Head of US Interest Rate Products) – Don’t have strong views or a robust framework for the election. It’s a binary event, and unclear what the policies/implications will be either way. Rates have been and will continue to be volatile. The market is pricing a 20bp breakeven move over the election, which seems a bit high, but not so high that you want to be short that convexity over the event. If you have a Republican sweep scenario, the night of the market probably doesn’t move a lot – it’s rates higher, risk assets higher initially, largely because what you would likely expect is that the Trump tax cuts get extended and there may well be more fiscal coming. We think the right area of the curve to be short is 2y2y. On Harris victory with divided Congress, we expect the curve to initially bull steepen, and for risk assets to trade weaker – which we would view as an opportunity to set up belly shorts.
  • Mark Salib/Fernando Alvarado Aguilar (FX Trading):  Many clients are long USDCNH via risk reversals to position for a possible Trump presidency, as there isn’t a strong case for USDCNH to depreciate significantly from here. We also like AUDJPY or USDJPY topside on a Trump win. On a potential Harris win we think USDMXN downside is one of the best trades, with favorable entry levels after the recent squeeze higher amid buying from all client types this week, including hedge funds to position for a possible Trump win (especially given Trump’s comments throughout the campaign on implementing tariffs) as well as CTA and real money buying. In a Harris scenario we think EURUSD may rally around 1.5%, but think the moves would be larger in USDMXN and would prefer to express the trade there.
  • Shawn Tuteja/Joseph Clyne (Equities Derivatives Trading/Index Trading) – Among a host of macro factors, we think that the run up in stocks, the collapse in implied vols, and the outperformance of RUT over NDX are partially due to the recent uptick in Trump odds, and a reversion of that move could reverse all three trends. Generally, we like owning year-end upside in SPX on a 12 vol handle which we think can carry flat/positive through the election while having spot up vol up beta on any sustained rally. On the sector side, we’ve seen the “Trump trades” from 2016 start to work, as this last leg higher in SPX has been driven by regional banks (KRE), large-cap banks (XLF), and energy. We’ve seen this buying come at the expense of AI in the past week or so. Interestingly, we’ve gotten a lot of questions from clients in the past 24 hours on best ways to “fade a Republican sweep,” thinking the odds and market pricing have run too far on this.
  • Nick Bartal (Oil Products Trading) – There is currently little positioning in oil directly related to the election. The conflict in the Middle East has shaken a short/low positioned oil market into having length. However, the consensus still remains that the oil balance will be heavy in 2025, which led to the short positioning coming into the Israel/Iran conflict rally in early October. While little direct positioning surrounding the election exists, a Trump victory would likely be day 1 bullish for oil, as he may strengthen sanctions on Iran.

Much more in the Goldman note available to pro subscribers.

* * *

Taking a quick look at UBS, the bank has its own thematic pair trade, and writes that the recent surge in the "Republican Sweep" basket supported the S&P 500 rallying to an all-time high. Indeed, as shown below, the UBS Republican Win basket has trounced the Democrat Win having closed higher for 14 consecutive days! Also, UBS notes that the dramatic ascent in dollar has largely been driven by Chinese Yuan weakness thanks to the surge the Republican Sweep theme.

Elsewhere, in a note from UBS trader Michael Romano, he writes that "the UBS Republican vs. Democrat election pair trade is up 15% month to date to fresh highs in virtually a straight line, suggesting the market has largely priced former President Donald Trump’s victory." Romano adds that "the election repricing, driven primarily by banks and solar, coincided with a growth re-pricing following a strong payrolls and strong earnings, making it less clear whether the recent moves are election or growth driven."

His conclusion: "While the end result is the same, i.e. banks higher, cyclicals/consumer/growth oriented stocks higher, the more the repricing was driven by an actual growth re-pricing, the more upside there still is on a Trump win. As most of the moves followed bank earnings, with strong follow-through on consumer, my money is on a lot more upside to come on a Trump win."

* * *

By now the big picture should be clear: whether due to his surge in online betting markets, or simply because Kamala’s honeymoon is dead and buried, there has been a rush of sentiment – by people who put money where their mouths – into the Trump Victory/Republican sweep camps, which also largely explains why stocks continue to make new all time highs day after day. However, if one takes a step back and asks a more neutral question without assuming the outcome, such as How will markets react to different US election outcomes?

To help with the answer, we go to a recent note from Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos (available to pro subscribers), who took recently published Deutsche Bank Research economics estimates of the likely impact of different election outcomes and translated them in to a market reaction across asset classes with a specific focus on FX. The table is intended to capture the immediate market reaction to year-end rather than the long-term impact. Below are DB’s four main conclusions:

  • There is large variance of opinion on the likely market and growth outcomes within the DB team. This largely stems from uncertainty on three fronts: the fiscal outcomes in the event of divided government, the extent to which tariff policy is applied, the medium-term effects of supply side policies relating to regulation, immigration and energy. Even with full certainty on tariff policy for example, the countervailing growth-inflation impact of a negative supply shock creates great ambivalence.
  • The largest variation in fiscal policy and growth outcomes is likely under a Trump administration: a red sweep would likely lead to the largest deficits while divided government could lead to the smallest deficits via the revenue impact of tariffs. By extension, a Trump victory has the most potential to generate the largest market moves in both directions in bond markets.
  • The largest variation in relative growth differentials between the US and the rest of the world is likely under a Trump versus Harris administration, irrespective of the Congressional outcome, due to tariff policy. By extension, the FX market outcome is more clear cut than the bond market in the event of a Trump victory.
  • We see the most bullish dollar outcome as a red sweep and the most bearish dollar outcome on a blue sweep, but the magnitude of the moves is likely larger in the former. There is also likely to be a large degree of variation in market response across different currency pairs: we see the dollar rising across all currency pairs in a red sweep. We see the dollar strong but FX carry trades as most likely to suffer in a Trump victory without Congress. Asia FX is likely to rally the most in the event of a Harris victory without Congress, while the broadest dollar losses would likely be in a Blue Sweep, albeit more limited than the dollar gains in a Red Sweep. We see short EUR/CAD and long MXN/ZAR as the two most asymmetric trades in FX heading in to the election.

Much more int he full notes from JPMorgan, Goldman, UBS and Deutsche Bank

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/20/2024 – 22:45

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com

Posted on

Victor Nieves: The Christian Case for Trump

2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

The presidential election is only days away. It is estimated that there are around 210 million Christians in this country. Without question, Christians hold the power to decide the result of this election and chart our nation’s future. Tragically, it is believed that as many as 32 million Christians will not be voting.

Our nation is plagued by immorality, corruption, and sin. Christians have sat idly by for years as our nation turned its back on the Biblical worldview that founded this country’s ethic. Now we are faced with a dichotomy, either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States. As Christians, we get to decide which candidate best aligns with the greatest attainable good.

Comparing the respective records, the answer is clear as day. While Donald Trump is an imperfect sinner in need of the grace of God, as are you and I, he is by far the best attainable good for our nation.

Lets look at his record as the 45th president of the United States. Trump has proven to be a steadfast defender of the Christian worldview. As president, he had the honor of appointing three Supreme Court Justices to the bench and while he could have picked anyone, he picked originalist Christians. These three would later play a pivotal role in securing some of the greatest wins for Christianity in recent memory.

  • Kennedy v. Bremerton. Coach Kennedy was fired from his job as a high school football coach for praying at the 50-yard line. Kennedy sued for a violation of the 1st Amendment and won. The court’s decision in this case ended the Lemon test, which was used to discriminate against Christians for decades.
  • Dobbs v. Jackson. Overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed for pro-life states to enact common sense protections for the most innocent and vulnerable of God’s children, those in the womb.
  • Groff v. DeJoy. The Court ruled that Americans should not be forced to make a choice between their occupation and their faith. This protected Christians who want to uphold the sabbath.
  • Carson v. Makin. The Court ruled Maine could not discriminate against religious schools for generally available tuition assistance payments.

Donald Trump also has been an adamant defender of Christianity and common sense in his proposed policy. Donald Trump has:

  • Vowed to keep men out of women’s sports.
  • Vowed to STOP genital mutilation surgery for minors.
  • Vowed to promote a positive education of the nuclear family and Biblical gender roles.
  • Promised his Education Department would impose “severe consequences” on any teachers or school officials who “suggest to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.”

Trump has publicly declared, “They want to tear down crosses where they can, and cover them up with social justice flags, but no one will be touching the cross of Christ under the Trump administration, I swear to you.”

Another statement from Trump said, “I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MANY OTHER PLACES, FOR THAT MATTER. READ IT — HOW CAN WE, AS A NATION, GO WRONG???”

He also said, “The left is trying to shame Christians… they’re trying to shame us. I’m a very proud Christian.”

Following the assassination attempts against him, gave credit to God saying, “I stand before you only by the grace of Almighty God. Many people say it was a providential moment. It probably was.”

The significance of a president that would publicly say such things cannot be overstated.

While it is not disputed that Trump is a sinful man, God has a long history of using flawed and sinful men. Acts 13:22 says, “After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’” Trump is no David, but the point stands that if a murdering adulterer like David can be used as a leader, so can someone like Trump.

Trump could be better, so could you. Unfortunately however, if Trump does not win Kamala Harris will. Her record speaks for itself. She is an unapologetic enemy of the Christian faith.

During her time as vice-president and candidate for president Kamala Harris has:

  • Dishonored Easter by declaring it the “national day of trans visibility.”
  • Run on a platform of “reproductive freedom” aka her radical support for unrestricted all trimesters abortion. She has repeatedly refused to outline ANY restrictions on abortion that she would support. Her running mate Tim Walz signed legislation as governor that allowed abortion until birth in Minnesota.
  • Been an avid supporter of transgenderism and one of her first appearances upon becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee was on the RuPaul Drag show.
  • Defended transition surgery for minors and pornographic hyper sexualized content in public schools, as shown by ravenous opposition to legislation that would protect children in Florida.
  • The Harris-Biden administration proudly hosted a “pride month celebration” on the south lawn of the White House where transgender activists were invited from around the country, one of which famously walked around topless in the presence of children.
  • The Biden DOJ and FBI have targeted believers and specifically Catholics as “potential terrorists.”
  • Recently at a Kamala Harris campaign event someone in the audience shouted “Christ is Lord.” In response Kamala publicly humiliated them and told them that they were at the wrong rally.

Comparing the lives of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris shows what every Christian should already know, they are both flawed sinners in need of God’s grace. Unless Christ our savior descends from heaven and runs for office, this will be true of every election. It is a Christian’s duty to be good stewards of what God has given us, including our right to vote.

Some Christians will refuse to vote claiming they will not vote for the, “lesser of two evils.” However, this thinking is flawed. To refuse to vote for the so-called lesser of two evils mandates that the Christian withdraw from politics entirely as every vote cast is for someone who is a sinner. Instead of this flawed thinking, we should pursue the greatest attainable good.

We are faced with a political dichotomy. Either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will become our next president. It is up to us to decide which candidate is best for our families, churches, neighbors, and community members. The results of this election will impact American’s abilities to pay for their groceries, avoid foreign wars, and worship freely.

Christians that do not vote for the greatest attainable good are complicit in the evil that Kamala Harris would enact. Not making a choice is inherently a choice. If 32 million Christians refuse to vote and Kamala Harris wins by a few hundred thousands votes it will be Christians to blame for every abortion, every transgender surgery on a minor, every family suffering financially, and every attack on Christianity caused by a Kamala presidency.

The post Victor Nieves: The Christian Case for Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

Posted on

Left McTriggered After Trump Does Fun Publicity Stunt

Left McTriggered After Trump Does Fun Publicity Stunt

On Sunday, Donald Trump poked fun at Kamala Harris’ dubious claim that she ‘worked at McDonald’s and made fries,’ by going to a McDonald’s and making fries, plus working the drive-thru.

Ding, fries are done!

Memes have been made.

McTriggered!

While most on the right thought it was a fun pre-election publicity stunt, it really triggered the left – which didn’t know what to do.

The sourpusses even posted a gotcha! Suggesting that because the McDonald’s closed for Trump’s event, the whole thing was staged. Well, duh. The guy was only almost assassinated twice (or thrice) and this is for fun.

Tim Walz had jazz hands of fury – and despite all the lies, insisting that Kamala Harris actually worked there. We’re sure he’s not lying this time too.

Even Matt Drudge opined (2016 Matt, blink twice if you need help).

Hilariously, The Atlantic‘s David Frum revealed he doesn’t know the difference between grilling and frying (and earned a nice ratio).

This is how you know the publicity stunt worked…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/20/2024 – 23:20

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com

Posted on

The Strategic Consequences Of Kamala Harris’ Incompetence

The Strategic Consequences Of Kamala Harris’ Incompetence

Authored by James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer via Americvan Greatness,

Vice President Kamala Harris’s disastrous performance in her interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier was notable for two reasons.

  • First, to the degree that there was any discussion of foreign national security threats to America, Harris only mentioned Iran. She failed to mention the disastrous war in Ukraine, where more than a million are dead, and the threat of nuclear war exists. Harris failed to reconcile her administration’s billions in dollars of military and civilian aid to Ukraine and policy actions against Russia for the most significant military threat in Europe since the end of World War Two. Worse though was her failure to make any reference to the existential threat from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

  • Second, her performance in response to salient questions—ones that had the chance to inform American voters—was an amalgamation of incoherence, anger, and deception that revealed a candidate who is uniquely unsuited to be president of the United States. The fact that she is the Democratic candidate and might become president is alarming to America’s friends, as it is welcomed by America’s enemies.

In the interview, she had the opportunity to discuss her analysis of threats to America. While Iran is certainly a regional danger and a threat to the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, it pales in comparison to the existential threat of the CCP. Indeed, Iran and Russia would be far less of a concern if the CCP were not given a free hand to back these aggressor nations. That the PRC is a grave and fundamental threat is revealed by its hyper-aggressive policies against the American people, U.S. allies like Japan and the Philippines, and partners like India and Taiwan.

An example of the CCP’s threatening military posture was put on display when Exercise Joint Sword 2024B launched on October 14, in which People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces encircled Taiwan to coerce its new leader, President Lai Ching-te, into a posture of subservience to the PRC. Thus far, those coercive attempts have failed. But Joint Sword 2024B revealed three aspects of the growing PRC threat. First, it showed the increasing capabilities of the PRC. Second, it demonstrated the ever-increasing penetrations of Taiwanese air and seaspace in an effort to normalize those violations and mask the actual invasion when it comes. Third, the first participation of the Chinese Coast Guard in the encirclement of Taiwan occurred.

  • First, with respect to the increased capabilities of the PLA Navy, it should be noted that their first aircraft carrier, Chinese Navy Ship (CNS) Liaoning/CV-16, conducted 90 fixed-wing take-offs and recoveries and 50 more from their embarked helicopters during their operations in the exercise. That is 140 sorties from a PLA Navy aircraft carrier in just one day. By any measure, the PLA Navy’s carrier aviation capabilities are now approaching U.S. Navy aircraft carrier air wing levels in terms of the number of sorties. It is the case that PLAN aircraft have a more limited range and weapons capacity than their U.S. Navy counterparts, due to the Liaoning’s ski-ramp launch, but the fact remains that within just two years, the Liaoning has gone from launching an average of just 30 sorties a day in 2022 to a 140 today. That is a real strategic trendline that presidential candidate Harris demonstrated no awareness or strategy to counter.

  • Second, regarding PLA incursions into Taiwan’s air and seaspace, exercise Joint Sword 2024B provides another inflection point in the PRC’s dramatic transformation of the military status quo in the cross-strait environment. During the exercise, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense reported that it detected a total of 153 PLA aircraft, 14 PLAN ships, and 12 Coast Guard ships operating around Taiwan and that 111 of those aircraft crossed the centerline of the Taiwan Strait and entered Taiwan’s air defense identification zones from the west, southwest, and east. To put that into perspective, from 1954 to 2020, PLA aircraft only crossed the centerline four times. This pattern of PLA air force incursions across the centerline began in earnest in 2022 when the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the PRC no longer recognized the centerline—a clear violation of the previous agreements between Beijing, Taipei, and Washington to not forcibly alter the status quo. Yet since then, and now with exercise Joint Sword 2024B, the Biden-Harris administration has made no mention of this hyper-aggressive behavior by Beijing or taken any actions to rectify it.

  • Third, the Joint Sword 2024B exercise was unique in that it demonstrated the use of non-PLA ships from the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) in this PLA-led exercise. Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported up to 17 CCGs were detected operating in the waters off Taiwan, or as the PRC’s Global Times noted, the “CCG conducted multi-unit, multi-formation, and multi-subject drills around the island of Taiwan, focusing on strengthening the control network around the island.” The implications of these unprecedented actions by the CCG are to demonstrate that the CCP’s strategy to bring Taiwan under its control, either by blockade or an outright invasion, will use the entirety of the PRC’s assets—a whole of government effort. These facts at sea demonstrate that the PRC’s 2019 declaration of a “People’s War” against the United States is not just propaganda but is advancing in tangible ways.

Americans need to understand the scope and scale of the CCP’s grand strategy as evidenced by the PLA Navy and the CCG’s demonstrated actions during exercise Joint Sword 2024B. The evidence is undeniable: the CCP intends for the PRC to become the dominant naval force, not just in Asia but across the globe.

This reality comes against the backdrop of a Biden-Harris administration that keeps downsizing the size and capabilities of the U.S. Navy.

So, when Bret Baier asks candidate Harris what America’s number one foreign adversary is and there is no mention of the PRC, Americans know this candidate is not competent to assume the office of the Presidency. Americans need to pay attention because U.S. national security is on a knife’s edge—to the U.S., the CCP is a hyper-aggressive regime that is determined to realize its grand strategic objective of dominance. Yet Harris displays no strategic gravitas. She evinces no evidence of the seriousness of the situation or of an understanding that deterrence of the CCP’s hyper-aggression is on her shoulders—let alone having a plan to address this threat.

Deterrence of the CCP is everything. If it fails, this country will be at war with the PRC. Harris appears oblivious to the demands and requirements of deterrence. Accordingly, before the PRC blockades or invades Taiwan or launches an attack against the Philippines in the South China Sea, Americans must have a president sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office who has the knowledge, experience, and courage to prepare our nation for the demands of deterrence of the CCP’s aggression. It must have a president who signals in stark and no uncertain terms to the CCP that their aggression is certain to fail—and so they had better not try it in the first place. A president who not only can talk tough but has the wherewithal to rebuild the U.S. deterrent. The catechism of deterrence is straightforward: weakness invites aggression; strength deters it. Americans must elect a president who understands this catechism and so defends our nation from all threats—most especially from the existential threat of the PRC.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/20/2024 – 23:55

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com

Posted on

Video: Trump Roasts Kamala at McDonald’s

In new hilarious developments, Donald Trump has roasted Kamala at McDonald’s, announcing: “I’ve now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala.”

Don’t miss it!

Reader Interactions

In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,” please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not re-post the same comment.

via FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.frontpagemag.com

Posted on

The Truth About Kamala

[Order The Truth About Kamala HERE.]

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has published a vital new digital pamphlet on the true history and motives of the surprise Democrat presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, as she attempts to ascend to the highest office in the nation.

The Truth About Kamala, authored by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow and the Chief Programs Officer at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, assembles vital information about the Vice President in one place — by following her record, following the money, and above all else, following the truth.

Read the Preface to the ebook below – and make sure to order it HERE.

The Right to Know:

Within a matter of weeks a major political party ousted its presidential nominee and replaced him with his obscure and unpopular vice president who has refused to define her current positions, recanted most of her past positions and dodged interviews with the press.

A mostly unknown presidential candidate was rushed through a secretive process with no public input and no public information beyond campaign press releases and no agenda beyond “joy”.

The Truth About Kamala steps into that information vacuum with research, facts and materials, much of it rapidly gathered by the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s non-partisan ‘Freedom Center Investigates’ within weeks of her sudden elevation, as well as vital commentary from Front Page Magazine’s past coverage of Kamala and the Biden-Harris administration.

Our public interest journalism was performed for the most public of reasons.

We believe that the members of the public have the right to know.

They have the right to know that as California’s attorney general, Kamala presided over a 64% increase in sexual assaults.

They have the right to know about the racism of her pastor and influential spiritual leader.

They have the right to know that her brother-in-law is a possible pick for attorney general.

They have the right to know about her backer’s financial ties to Communist China.

They have the right to know about the conflicts of interest from her husband’s legal work.

They have the right to know about her past record in three elected offices.

They have the right to know about her involvement in the corrupt politics of San Francisco.

They have the right to know that former aides accused her of abusing campaign funds.

The David Horowitz Freedom Center’s investigative reporting is the only place to learn all of that because we carry out the investigative journalism that the establishment media no longer does.

The Truth About Kamala does not exist for partisan motives but because we believe the public has a right to know. Never has a politician been less vetted than Kamala Harris.

That is about to change.

[Order The Truth About Kamala HERE.]

via FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.frontpagemag.com

Posted on

Video: The Savage Truth About Being Man Enough NOT To Vote For Kamala

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

To help support The Savage Truth podcast featuring Cicely Davis, click HERE. Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.

To help support The Right Take podcast featuring Mark Tapson, click HERE.

In the most recent episode of the Freedom Center’s podcast The Savage Truth, host Cicely Davis invites her husband Brad on the show to discuss the pathetic ads and Elmer Fudd attempts by Tim Walz to win over American males, further hindering the Kamala Harris campaign. With their campaign clearly flailing, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz attempt desperate maneuvers to appeal to the one demographic they have spent the last 4 years attacking: heterosexual males.

Check out the short clip below and the full episode HERE:

Reader Interactions

In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,” please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not re-post the same comment.

via FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.frontpagemag.com

Posted on

Harris & Walz: Everything You Need to Know

Editors’ note: DiscovertheNetworks.org has put together a comprehensive section examining the Harris, Walz, Biden, and Trump positions on the major issues in the upcoming election. It meticulously lays out their positions as expressed in their own words. Make sure to check it out below:

Harris & Walz: Everything You Need to Know: CLICK HERE.

Reader Interactions

In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,” please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not re-post the same comment.

via FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.frontpagemag.com

Posted on

2024: Voting by Facts, Not Feelings

Today, the American people are deciding on the best choice for the president of the United States for the next four years, so it is vital to distinguish between facts and fiction and emotions versus the truth.

With a constant bombardment of propaganda, perception can become one’s reality.  Still, the only reality is reality, and perception can be whatever becomes accepted in the human mind because of exposure to faulty data.

Knowing that a fundamental responsibility for any American president is the safety and economic stability of the American people, the corporate propaganda media have not challenged Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris for her handling of the southern border or the economy for the last four years.

So what were Kamala Harris’s economic and border security achievements for the past four years, and how do her numbers stack up when placed alongside the four years under President Donald Trump?

When Harris and Biden stepped into office in 2021, they inherited Trump’s 1.4% inflation rate.  They quickly exploded the overall inflation rate to 19.75 by passing the American Rescue Plan Act.  Then, in August 2022, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act because of Kamala’s tie-breaking vote.  That act authorized $891 billion in additional spending, massively increasing inflation.

Harris’s philosophy of restricting gas and oil production had a substantial detrimental effect on American consumers.  The national average cost of gasoline under Kamala rose 47%.  Americans paid $2.28 per gallon under Trump, but that same gallon would cost $3.35 today. Under Kamala, filling up a 20-gallon gas tank would cost Americans $67; under Trump, it would cost only $45.60, or $21.40 less.

The increase in fuel costs put incredible hardships on truckers who ship various goods across the country.  The unnecessary increase had a catastrophic domino effect.  Groceries became more expensive by 20%, electricity went up 28%, and rent went up 21%.  Nearly everything Americans purchased became far more costly. 

The numbers tell the real story, so as far as people’s pocketbooks are concerned, based on the economic facts, Americans enjoyed much more spending power and consumer freedom under Trump.

Looking at the illegal immigration crises, the positions of the two candidates could not be more different.  Kamala has historically supported sanctuary cities and an open southern border.  When in power, she immediately stopped the construction of Trump’s border wall and ended Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy.  Harris categorized the wall as being “racist, medieval, anti-immigrant, Trump’s vanity project, and a waste of taxpayer money.”

Her goal has always been to decriminalize illegal crossings.  She stated, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”  At the same time, President Trump has consistently labeled those crossing the southern border illegally as illegal aliens who are committing a crime when they enter the country.

Harris also wants to dismantle Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating in an MSNBC interview, “I think there’s no question that we’ve got to critically re-examine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing … and we need to probably think about starting from scratch.”

Along with already giving free housing, food, and education to illegal aliens, Harris has also vowed to provide them free health care, which would crush the American taxpayer.

Border encounters under Harris were 8.3 million, which included 13,099 convicted of murder and 15,811 convicted of rape and sexual assault — an increase of 241% compared to encounters under Trump.

The number-one tragedy of Kamala’s open border policy is human suffering, including the heinous murders of innocent Americans like Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, and Jocelyn Nungaray.  Kamala also lost track of 320,000 migrant children, who experts say are now either dead or captive in the sex trade.

According to a August 2024 article by the Heritage Foundation, “Between October 2022 and April 2023 — Customs and Border Protection seized more than 17,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border, enough to kill every single American 14 times over[.] … Fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 49.”

With the election right around the corner, President Trump and millions of Americans now see Kamala Harris taking credit for a wall she detested for many years.  She now takes promotional photos in front of sections of the wall built by Trump and says she will start building a wall when elected.

Again, the numbers tell the real story, so as far as border security is concerned, under Trump, the American people were safer and the border more secure as the number of illegal alien crossings hit a historic 45-year low, whereas under Harris, the number of illegal border crossings hit historic highs with the fallout being higher crime rates and the senseless rapes and deaths of Americans.

Americans don’t need to imagine what a presidency under Trump will look like because precise data reveals his four years in office.

And Americans don’t need to speculate what a presidency under Harris would be like, since Harris stated that there is nothing she would have changed regarding policies during President Biden’s presidency.  Hence, Americans can expect at least 10 to 20 million more illegal aliens crossing over the border, receiving free benefits at taxpayer expense.  Four hundred thousand more American deaths due to Fentanyl overdoses. Higher crime rates, including rape and murder, and higher food and gas prices, with young, hardworking Americans unable to afford a home.

Putting feelings aside, Trump had a significantly more robust economy and a more vigorous and secure southern border.  Americans had more spending money and were safer under Trump.  Whether Americans will vote with their heads based on the numbers or their emotions while discounting what the realities are remains the question.

<p><em>Image: cagdesign via <a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/vote-vote-here-vote-sign-5333477/">Pixabay</a>, <a href="https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license">Pixabay License</a>.</em></p>

Image: cagdesign via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

Is Kamala Harris a Marxist?

There has been a lot of analysis and commentary about last month’s presidential debate, regarding everything from the ABC moderators’ selective fact-checking to Harris’s statement that she is a gun owner to Trump’s reference to reports that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating dogs and cats. Also remarkable was Trump’s assertion that “[Harris] is a Marxist. Everyone knows she’s a Marxist. Her father is a Marxist professor in economics. And he educated her well.”

But perhaps the most significant — and almost universally overlooked — aspect of the debate was something that did not happen: Kamala Harris did not deny that she’s a Marxist. Moreover, she still has not denied she is a Marxist.

Many commentators have taken pains to deny this, such as by arguing that Harris’s plan is not sufficiently socialistic to be Marxist. Others have appealed to Communist Party disavowals of Harris, distancing Harris from her father’s views or tried to refute the claim that Harris’s father was a genuine Marxist. But Harris herself has yet even to address Trump’s accusation.

Is Kamala Harris a Marxist? To answer this question, we must first define the term. Essentially, Marxism is a materialistic, anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth. So to what extent, if at all, are Harris’s views consistent with these tenets? Here are four things to consider.

First, Harris has repeatedly emphasized equity, which is code for treating people unequally in order to achieve equal economic outcomes. For example, in a 2021 White House speech Harris urged that we must be “truly committed to the principles of equity in every way that we as government and as a society can enforce those important principles.” And in her 2022 comments on relief for Hurricane Ian victims, Harris advocated “giving resources based on equity understanding.” The concept of equity provides a clear rationale for wealth redistribution and hearkens to the Marxist dictum “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” This is why Liz Cheney remarked that Harris “sounds just like Karl Marx.” And, as some have pointed out, the norm of equity actually contradicts the norm of equality, as it is essentially a mandate to discriminate — a practical consequence of Marxism that has tragically played out repeatedly over the last century.

Secondly, Harris’s endorsements of capitalism are consistently qualified in a socialist direction. For example in a 2021 Forbes interview, she said capitalism even in its best form makes the “false assumption” that everyone starts in the same place “particularly when we take into account race and gender.” She then adds that we must consider these disparities when allowing for economic competition. This, of course, constitutes a virtual blank check in terms of socialistic controls to compensate for such disparities in order to create equal outcomes. This is consistent with Marxist thought, which says that class struggle leads to exploitation and oppression in a capitalistic context — injustices which can only be redressed through socialistic management of the economy.

Speaking of which, Harris has vowed to implement price controls should she become President, and this is itself a clear signal of a socialist economic agenda. Specifically, she has proposed a federal ban on grocery “price gouging,” capping prices of insulin and other prescription drugs, and generally lowering health care costs. And she promises to give $25,000 to first-time homebuyers. All told, the Harris plan would dole out over $1.5 trillion in government handouts. This is indicative of a philosophy of federal micromanagement of the economy — an approach very much consistent with Marxist methods. And it is an approach that cannot remain piecemeal but necessarily becomes systemic, as specified market controls create unintended market effects that must then be addressed through further market controls, and so on down the slippery slope to wholesale socialism.

Finally, Harris has been plausibly accused of anti-religious bigotry. While serving as a California senator in 2018, Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act, a bill that aimed to undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a critical federal safeguard of Americans’ religious freedom. The ironically titled Do No Harm Act would have required religious devotees and faith-based organizations to violate their religious convictions regarding traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.

Later, during her time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harris needled several judicial nominees about their membership with the Catholic charity group, Knights of Columbus. Harris repeatedly questioned the nominees’ ability to serve impartially given their standard Catholic advocacy of traditional marriage and the sanctity of life — again, both views which for most Catholics are deeply informed by religious convictions. While Harris did not critique the nominees’ religious beliefs per se, her targeting their involvement with the Knights of Columbus, whose public services are directly inspired by their theological convictions, amounts to tacit religious discrimination.

Harris’s anti-religious stance was also evident in her 2021 support of the Equality Act, which would have undermined RFRA in the name of gender ideology, and her 2013 petitioning of the U.S. Supreme Court to force Hobby Lobby to cover abortifacients in their health care plans.

Harris’s track record throughout her public career shows a consistent pattern of anti-religious bias, which is, again, consistent with the anti-religion stance of Marxism.

These facts do not prove that Kamala Harris is a Marxist, but they are certainly consistent with that possibility. Given Harris’ economic ideal of equity, her evident hostility toward free market capitalist principles, and her alarming record of anti-religious bias, not to mention her persistent refusal to deny Donald Trump’s nationally televised accusation that she is a Marxist, this should give us serious pause.

A common metaphor for abductive logic says, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So what are we to make of Kamala Harris, given this principle? Her record does suggest that she holds to an anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth — the very definition of Marxism.

It seems Trump’s accusation is indeed plausible: the Harris “duck” might very well be a Marxist one.

James S. Spiegel is Executive Director of the Kalos Center for Christian Education and Spiritual Formation in Columbus, Ohio. He has published eleven books and over 100 articles and book chapters. He can be reached at jmspieg@gmail.com.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/