Month: November 2018

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

“Between now and November 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes.”

Unfortunately this isn’t trash talk from some middle school bully… it’s a public threat made by a Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate to his incumbent opponent.

With the midterm elections tomorrow, I wanted to take some time today to remind you who your vote actually supports.

Politics has likely never been more divisive in the US… and the politicians continually stoke this flame, often times, like with the quote above, inciting their constituents to carry out violent acts against the opposing party.

It’s completely despicable that this has become the state of government in the land of the free… instead of focusing the public’s attention on solving the big problems the US faces (like debt), politicians stoke partisan flames to advance their own self interests.

And they encourage outright violence. One congresswoman encouraged supporters to attack members of the Cabinet if they saw them in public…

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Calling for violence because you don’t agree with the opposing party is totally pathetic. It’s something I’d expect to see in a third-world country, not the world’s leading economic power.

And it’s one of the many, many reasons I don’t vote.

At the end of the day, you’re forced to choose between two, self-serving candidates who will say whatever BS they have to gain/retain power.

People think they can use their vote to get “the right guy in power.” But the truth is, the new guy just turns into the last guy… because the whole system is broken.

The government spends almost every tax dollar it takes in to pay interest on its debt and on entitlements like social security and Medicare.

And the government’s own projections show the country going only deeper and deeper into debt.

So any choice leads to the same set of dire, economic consequences.

And by voting, you’re saying you accept the current system. You may have your gripes, but you ultimately believe it’s fair and it works.

The reality is, there are far better ways to actually vote.

For one, you can vote with your feet… that’s something I did a decade ago when I moved abroad.

But that’s not for everybody… some people can’t just move.

But you can also vote with your dollars. You should take all the legal steps at your disposal to reduce what you owe the government.

If you don’t like the candidates, simply stop participating in the system. Stop giving them resources to squander “for your benefit.”

Remember, the government spends YOUR money, not theirs. So if you want them to stop wasting money, stop giving them so much.

One way to do this is to move to Puerto Rico, where you can pay 4% corporate tax and zero tax on capital gains through Acts 20 and 22.

I recently decided to do this.

You can also take advantage of opportunity zones.

Normally, you’d pay 23.8% capital gains tax (including the Obamacare surcharge). But through opportunity zones, you can trade in overpriced stocks and real estate and invest that money in designated “opportunity zones” across the US.

Not only will you defer your initial capital gains tax for up to seven years… you’ll pay ZERO capital gains tax on that new investment, forever.

I’ve got to stress, you should always follow the law when reducing taxes. Luckily, there are lots of incredible and completely legal ways to drastically reduce the taxes you pay.

So while everyone else lines up to vote in the midterms, then proudly posts a picture of their “I voted” sticker on social media…

Just remember, there are better ways to make your vote count.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Oo3HwI Tyler Durden

Three days after a Kremlin spokesman revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump had agreed to a “long and thorough” meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, President Trump confirmed as much during brief comments with reporters at Andrews Air Force Base on Monday, but added that he “probably won’t” be meeting with Putin next week in Paris, where both men are expected to attend a ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI.

US President Donald Trump says he “probably won’t” be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Paris, but will meet at the G20 summit later this month https://t.co/vC47a5sOR9 pic.twitter.com/3iSrvcC9W3

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 5, 2018

The president reiterated that he, Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping – with whom the president is also expected to meet in Buenos Aires later this month – would be having “plenty of meetings” in the future. Moscow and Washington are in the process of planning a Washington summit expected some time early next year. However, Trump said he’s “not sure” about whether a Paris meeting would happen.

“We haven’t set anything up yet – we don’t know whether that’s going to be the right place. I’m going to be in Paris for other reason. But we will be meeting at the G-20. We will be having meetings after that – probably plenty of meetings. Getting along with Russia and China would be a good thing – I’ve said it many times. But I’m not sure that we’ll have a meeting in Paris – probably not.”

Meetings between Trump and Putin would come as the DOJ has indicted a Russian national for her involvement with another Russian troll farm trying to “interfere” with the US midterms, as US lawmakers weigh more sanctions on Russian banks.

Trump also said he believes Republicans will perform better than many expect in Tuesday’s midterms, though he acknowledged that, historically, the president’s party typically loses seats in Congress. The president also mockingly dismissed questions about the “racist” campaign advertisement that has been pulled by several cable channels and networks, replying that sometimes reporters ask him questions that are “offensive.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JGhcqS Tyler Durden

Authored by Tom Luongo,

“Remember, Remember the Fifth of November…”

V for Vendetta

Tuesday’s mid-term elections will not be a turning point for the United States.  That happened when we elected Donald Trump in 2016. 

The roots of Trump’s win were seeded back in 2008 with Ron Paul.

And today the words I wrote then I think hold the key to understanding what is happening around the world today.

Paul has offered himself as the figure-head for a revolution that was mature enough, finally, to find him.  His campaign is a spontaneous and self-organizing uprising of human frustration; acknowledging that it’s truly time for a change in direction for this society and the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. 

Substitute Trump, Orban, Putin, Farage, Le Pen, Salvini or Kurz for Paul and that sentence is just as valid.

Ron Paul was our Guy Fawkes.  But unlike Fawkes Paul eschewed all forms of violence to achieve his goals.  And if you look at the film version of Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta which inspired my 2008 article that is exactly what the people of England do.

Again, from that article.

By converging on Parliament to sanction the destruction of the old social order and complete the work that Fawkes could not, the people of England in the film state that they are rejecting violence as the means of change; that this event is their catharsis even if they aren’t quite sure what it all will mean tomorrow.

V’s vendetta transcended what happened to him personally, the wrongs done to him.  V was the Destroyer.

Evey was to be his replacement, the Rebuilder. 

And by the time 2016 rolled around we reached that point of saying that’s enough.  What’s happening is a bridge too far. 

It took eight years to percolate, for the V memes to become commonplace and a critical mass of people to see through the illusions and the lies.  For social media to spread ideas beyond the control of the gatekeepers.

Their rule had become so corrupt, so intolerable we latched onto the guy who took up even a portion of Ron Paul’s message of ending the empire, cutting the corruption.

In short, draining the swamp.

That’s why we rolled the dice with Trump. We knew Clinton was everything we didn’t want. It was time to draw a line in the sand. 

That created a complete meltdown by the other side of the political spectrum, the one that reveres state power.

And that tantrum has lasted two whole years.  It will continue long after Tuesday’s votes are counted.

Because power is a drug that cannot be quit cold turkey.  The systems that erect the powerful don’t fail overnight. The perception of their invincibility does, but the breakdown afterwards, the chaos, has to be worked through. 

And that means anger, hate, intolerance and violence.  It means a major part of the country will embrace insanity as a coping mechanism.  Many already have.

Tuesday’s election will be a turning point in this sense. 

The big question we all have is, “Do the people who voted for Trump in 2016 have the fortitude to see this revolution through to its conclusion?”

Will they sanction continuing down this path because the Democrats and their powerful backers will define for us what the price of that resistance will be.

That price will be high. 

It may even be unpayable.  Because when the Democrats and the Marxists realize they are truly beaten, then they will get really violent to wrest control.

That’s where we are today. 

A recent Harris poll saw a huge bifurcation between people who associate themselves with Trump versus that of the Republicans. I’m certainly one of those people. 

This is the inherent distrust of the entrenched.  People want this current political order torn down. 

And they elected Trump to do just that.  Run a train full of dynamite into the Capitol and blow it to smithereens. 

Trump is a third-party candidate running a revolution within the GOP.

If the Republicans are vulnerable this week it is on that fact alone.  That there are still too many of the rank and file, people barely better than the Democrats voters know they don’t want, on the ballot.  And there may be some weird moments of voting cross-party simply to sow even more dissent, more chaos.

But I suspect that effect will be low. 

What I expect is early voting numbers to reflect what will happen on election day. 

But, regardless of what happens there will not be any less violence.  Any more civility.  The political discourse has been destroyed.

Even people like Lindsay Graham are disgusted with it.

So, Tuesday marks the choice between the further destruction of the old political order or two more years of gridlock and infighting.

A Republican hold of the House will see the stock markets jump as fears of the Democrats undoing everything Trump has accomplished recede.  The dollar will rally and the focus will shift to Europe.

But at the same time the outcome of election day will be messy.  There will be lawsuits, hanging chads, evil Russians and a showdown on the Texas border.  The news media will be full of reports of violence stoking further enmity and division because their job is the enforcement of control.

As Mr. Dascombe said in V for Vendetta, “We’re the BTN, we don’t make the news, that’s the government’s job.”  If the last month of stupidity hasn’t taught you this fundamental truth then unfortunately, I feel, nothing ever will.

Everything has a price and on Tuesday we will know just how high a price Americans are willing to pay to set things on a different path.  Trump is no savior, he’s a vessel, an imperfect one for sure, but he’s what we have right now.

He’s our V.  Our Destroyer. 

Movies are unlike real life.  They end after telling us the lesson.  Life continues.

And the lesson of V for Vendetta is that we have to be the Rebuilders. 

The people in Britain had to wake up the next morning and start.  We’re two years in and have barely begun. 

*  *  *

Join My Patreon if you want to build a better personal future.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DrfIAq Tyler Durden

The US midterm elections are tomorrow, and with large implications for US policy and markets, the stakes are high.

After the 2016 election, equities rallied sharply and bond yields rose, as investors anticipated fiscal stimulus and looser regulatory policy from the Republican-controlled federal government. While the Presidency is not on the ballot this November, the GOP may lose control of one or both chambers of congress. As shown below, the Democrats need to flip only 24 seats in the House or 2 seats in the Senate to wrest control of one chamber.

The consequences of tomorrow’s election could have wide-ranging effects: GOP officials have mentioned the possibility of additional tax cuts if they retain control, though the details are sparse. Alternatively, some commentators have suggested that if Democrats  make gains, they could work together with President Trump to pass a major infrastructure spending package.

Overnight, in reports from both SocGen and Deutsche Bank, analysts review what the polls and betting markets indicate about the likely outcome of the election, what the main issues under discussion are, and what the possible market implications will be.

Here are the key things to look for:

House of Representatives

Typically, the opposition party tends to gain seats in midterm elections. Over the last 150 years, there have been only four  instances where an incumbent president has actually seen his party gain seats. These have often been the result of special circumstances. For example, President Bush’s popularity increased after the September 11 attacks ahead of the 2002 midterms. In 1998, the Democrats gained seats but did not take back legislative control. In 1934, amid the Great Depression, the Democrats benefited from the popularity of President Roosevelt’s New Deal program. In 1902, the size of the House of Representatives was expanded, so while the incumbent Republicans did gain nine House seats, their majority actually shrank by 16 seats.

Furthermore, as Deutsche Bank notes, historically, the “generic ballot,” which asks voters which party they plan to vote for without narrowing the question based on candidate or district, has been a strong predictor of the eventual House election outcome. As shown below, a 1pp gain in the generic ballot is associated with around a 0.98pp increase in eventual seat share. Republicans tend to outperform their generic polling margin, scoring a 3% majority even if the generic poll is tied, on average. For this cycle, the generic poll shows a 9.1pp Democratic lead (taking the average of the ten most recent polls), which would equate to around a 5.8% or 42 seat majority. This Democratic lead in the generic ballot has been fairly steady over the last 18 months. It widened slightly at the end of last year, but has remained in the same range throughout 2018.

Another closely tracked predictor of midterm House election results has been the Presidential approval rating. President Trump’s current approval, at around 42%, is notably above its trough last fall around 36% and near the highs of his Presidency, but it also implies a Democratic House victory. Based on the historical relationship, his current polling would equate to around a 37 seat loss for the GOP. Note, however, that the relationship is more uncertain when a President’s approval rating is below 50%, with the actual outcomes more dispersed.

Senate

The Senate will be tougher to predict. Since only a third of the chamber is up for reelection every two years – unlike the House where every member faces reelection every two years – it is harder to infer powerful trends from historical experience. This cycle, the election map looks very favorable to the Republicans. Of the 35 seats being contested, 26 are currently held by Democrats. Of those Democratically-held seats, 10 are in states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016. In contrast, Republicans are only defending eight states, and only one of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

Betting odds

Betting odds and professional modeling confirm these expectations. The chart below shows the betting market-implied odds from PredictIt (an online betting website) and the model output from fivethirtyeight. Taken together, they indicate around a 75% chance that the Democrats take control of the House and around an 80% chance that the Republicans retain control of the Senate.

Looking at just 538’s model, Democrats have an 86% chance to win control of the House, and Republicans have an 85% chance to retain the Senate.

What are the key issues?

Some of the major themes from the last two years of political discourse continue to dominate the campaign rhetoric. Using Google trends data on internet searches, healthcare, trade, and immigration are the top issues in the public consciousness. In contrast, two major areas of potential pro-growth fiscal expansion – tax reform and infrastructure – barely feature. The Mueller investigation, which sparked market volatility in May 2017 when it was started, has the potential to resurface at some point but the public does not seem overly interested in the topic.

According to SocGen, four key economic issues are at stake: A Democrat majority or split Congress can influence key fiscal issues. The relevant themes we examine are tax cuts, government spending, regulatory reform, and trade policy.

• Tax reform: Even with a Democrat-controlled Congress, Trump holds veto power and can easily protect the tax cut legislation. There is unlikely to be any change to the tax reform legislation. Congress is considering extending individual tax cuts that expire in 2025, but prospects there are mixed. A Democratic Congress, or a Democrat majority in just one house of Congress, would materially reduce the chances that congress in 2019-20 would approve making the individual tax cuts permanent.
• Government spending: Current law requires a spending cut in FY20 (fiscal years begin in October, and FY20 begins October 2019). Can a Democratic Congress work with Trump to raise spending caps for FY20? The easy answer is yes. A Republican  Congress passed increased spending caps with significant support for the Democrats. Trump has an incentive to maintain defense spending and avoid the hard cuts required in current rules. Democrats will want to avoid painful cuts to non-defense programs. It might not be easy, but there is plenty of room to negotiate a bipartisan outcome.

• Regulatory reform: Regulatory reform is primarily in the domain of the various financial regulators that have varying independence from the President, and who operate very independently from Congress. Yes, Congress confirms leadership for these agencies, but most of the appointees are already in place. Trump has appointed new leaders to most of the financial regulatory bodies. The Treasury has provided a thorough game-plan for discussion and refinements of the Dodd-Frank legislation. A repeal is not in the cards. The US Treasury, along with the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and others are reviewing various portions of the financial regulations in an effort to reduce burdens.
• Trade policy: The president enjoys great latitude in setting trade policy. The actions taken in 2018 were done without the consent of Congress. The current Republican Congress at times has criticized Trump for trade policies. A Democratic Congress in 2019 might be more vocal criticizing Trump’s trade-policy initiatives, but there is no obvious power they can exert over the president on trade. New efforts for Congress to write legislation that would clarify or strengthen their hand would require presidential approval. The veto threat would likely remain an effective tool for the president. A Democratic majority in either or both houses of congress could disrupt approvals of trade agreements. The first agreement to consider would be the new USMCA (to replace NAFTA). While approval could be seen as giving Trump a victory, the alternative – pulling out of NAFTA without a replacement – is not a good alternative. The emphasis on more production from higher-paid North American labour is a union and labor win that the Democrats would be unwise to reject

Key Risks

Risk of greater partisanship: The risks from even greater partisanship include government shutdowns, constitutional challenges, and potential impeachment hearings. All this uncertainty could affect decision-making. For an aged business expansion, uncertainty might be more damaging.

• Government shutdowns threat: Trump has already threatened to shut down the government to push Congress to pass immigration reform and build a wall on the US-Mexican border. To force action with a Democratic majority in Congress, he may be using this tool more frequently. The uncertainty and disruptions can plague markets and the economy. Moreover, the debt limit could be another avenue to exert pressure. Trump has shown the will to fight.
• Impeachment is an additional consideration: A Democratic House of Representatives would likely want a more determined examination of impeachment. The investigation overseen by Robert Mueller will remain at work, regardless of the election outcome. If Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate, the chances of a guilty verdict are lower. This uncertainty for financial markets and the economy could meaningfully intensify with a Democrat-led Congress. But with the economy now in the later stages of a business cycle and the positive effects of fiscal stimulus ebbing, we would not take comfort in a benign outcome either.

Market Reaction

In order to assess the medium-term market impact of the midterms and recommend trade ideas, SG economists, strategists and analysts have worked under three different scenarios according to the election outcome.

• Scenario 1: Gridlock – GOP Senate and DEM House (most likely): Markets would fear that economy would be more vulnerable from now on with the absence of any further economic stimulus in the event of economic slowdown.
• Scenario 2: Blue Wave – DEM Senate and DEM House: Markets would stir on speculation of a lame duck presidency and potential impeachment proceedings. Potential upside risk on Infrastructure.
• Scenario 3: Red Wave – GOP Senate and GOP House (least likely): The least expected scenario for the market, which would probably trigger a short-lived risk-on environment. Trade tensions and Fed tightening will quickly be back in the market focus

SocGen’s US economist has provided potential policy outcome stemming from these three potential elections outcomes:

Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank’s equity strategists believe that the environment is ripe for an equity rally into year end. Markets have historically rallied around midterm elections, though this is equally due to historic coincidence (growth has tended to be strong around elections) as the actual elections. They expect this scenario to repeat, as growth looks strong, positioning is light, and Democratic gains could act as a check on the president’s trade war policies. On the other hand, some Democratic politicians have expressed support for President Trump’s trade war, so they may actually support an escalation against China.

On the FX side, the bank’s strategists do not expect a significant change for the dollar or for EM FX. In the event that the Republicans retain full control, risk assets would likely rally and the dollar would rally. If the Democrats surprisingly gain control of both chambers, uncertainty and volatility would likely rise and probably weaken the dollar in at least the short-term.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QgPtiJ Tyler Durden

Two weeks ago we observed a series of Treasury auctions, specifically the 2Y, 5Y and 7Y issues in late October, which were generally in line with historical average except for a perplexing collapse in Direct Bidders. Today, this Direct bidder “boycott” continued, when moments ago the Treasury sold $37 billion in an upsized 3Y auction whose most notable feature was the plunge in the Direct takedown.

First, the big picture: the 3Y auction stopped at a high yield of 2.983%, just below last month’s 2.989% and tailing the When Issued 2.980% by 0.3bps, and the 2nd highest since May 2007. The bid to cover printed at 2.54, also in line with last month’s 2.56 if below the 6 auction average of 2.67.

However, it was the internals where the surprise lay again, because while Indirects took down a strong 49.1%, the highest since July, and above the 42.1 6 auction average, the Directs tumbled again, taking down just 3%, or $1.1 billion, of the auction after tendering $2.8BN in bids. This left Dealers holdings 47.9% of the auction, the highest since December 2016.

As we discussed two weeks ago, it remains a mystery why the Direct bid has suddenly dried out, and due to the Treasury’s somewhat nebulous distinction between Directs and Indirects, as well as what and who Dealers actually buy US paper for, it will be next to impossible to get to the bottom of this recent quandary without the Treasury itself chiming in.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yRNY4b Tyler Durden

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

It may be as simple as this: voters look at the two parties and decide that they don’t want the nation to turn into a gigantic seminar on race and gender studies.

The Democratic Party doesn’t have a platform, it has a curriculum. The party wants to instruct everybody how to think and act. You will be tested regularly on the correctness of your thought. And if you fail or object, say goodbye to your livelihood.

That’s the main reason that the Golden Golem of Greatness plays so well in the forsaken flyover precincts of this troubled land. They are weary of being scolded for their “privilege” by the privileged undergraduates of the most elite campuses. And from there, of course, the astounding hypocrisy informs and infects Democratic politics up to the highest level — e.g. the mendacious sex hysteria engineered by Diane Feinstein and a corps of DC swamp lawyers in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

This year’s main gambit by the Democrats has been the niggerization of white people. Oh, did I say the wrong word? It happens to describe exactly what has gone on: the effort to make white people the object of contempt and loathing. You don’t have to look further than The New York Times and its hiring of Sarah Jeong as an editorial writer — after she was discovered to be the author of Twitter tweets that declared, “Cancel white people,” and “Oh man, It’s sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men,” and “dumbass fucking white people….” I’m wondering: is there any ambiguity there? By the way, a search of The Times website for “by Sarah Jeong” comes up absolutely empty, suggesting that they’ve published nothing written by her since she got hired. There’s a show of confidence in their integrity!

Unless the financial markets blow up conveniently by the end of business Monday morning, Mr. Trump will continue to bellow out his triumphs of economic management. Personally, I’m not persuaded this vaunted miracle boom is anything but the result of piling onto the national debt, one way or another — tax cuts, fiscal profligacy, “defense” spending. And nobody should trust the numbers coming out of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, since they don’t count the many people who have simply dropped out of job-seeking.

The nation is still slowly choking to death on the fatal combination of its suburban sprawl living arrangement, the tyranny of multinational corporations, the profitless Ponzi scheme of shale oil fracking, and the immersive dishonesty that has turned even medicine and education into deadly moneygrubbing rackets. That armature of grift has to collapse, and the collapse has already begun on the margins and is steadily working its way to the core, where even the hedge fund cowboys and masters-of-the-universe will end up gasping like stranded whales on the shoals of insolvency.

In the meantime, and even so, it is imperative to keep the Democratic Party from the levers of power. If elected, they will convert a necessary and inescapable Fourth Turning into a game show replay of the French Revolution, with overtones of the Spanish Inquisition. We have not nearly seen the end of how insane a society can become under duress. And the duress of living in a collapsing industrial economy is something that the world has hardly seen before. Why do you think so many people are opiating themselves into an early grave?

This country certainly deserves leadership that can inspire it to carry on, to find a way to live even within the austere terms presented by the collapse of old arrangements. It won’t be the end of the world, and finding new, workable arrangements for daily life will open new doors as the old ones close. None of the political figures onstage these days inspires much confidence in that proposition, or even appears to see what’s on the horizon. So the Democrats seek solace in their race and gender antics and the Republicans gaze longingly back at the year 1957, and the fate of the nation goes where it will.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2OtUjI5 Tyler Durden

NBC aired an immigration-themed advertisement during last night’s “Sunday Night Football” game between the New England Patriots and Green Bay Packers, which CNN publicly declared too racist to run. 

The 30-second prime-time ad – a longer version of which was tweeted by President Trump on Halloween, juxtaposes footage of cop-killing illegal immigrant Luis Bracamontes with the approaching Central American caravan, implying that similarly violent criminals may be among those seeking asylum in the United States. 

Bracamontes – who had been deported twice, was convicted of murdering two Sacramento sheriff’s deputies in 2014 and sentenced to death in April. 

“Dangerous illegal criminals like cop killer Luis Bracamontes don’t care about our laws,” says the ad. 

It is outrageous what the Democrats are doing to our Country. Vote Republican now! https://t.co/0pWiwCHGbh pic.twitter.com/2crea9HF7G

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2018

NBC’s decision to air the ad comes on the heels of CNN’s refusal to play it, while the network publicly responded to a tweet by Donald Trump Jr. criticizing the network for their decision. 

“CNN has made it abundantly clear in its editorial coverage that this ad is racist,” reads CNN’s tweet. “When presented with an opportunity to be paid to take a version of this ad, we declined.” 

CNN has made it abundantly clear in its editorial coverage that this ad is racist. When presented with an opportunity to be paid to take a version of this ad, we declined. Those are the facts. 🍎

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) November 3, 2018

NBC’s decision to air the add did not go over with some of their on-air talent, such as Debra Messing who plays Grace in “Will and Grace.” Messing tweeted: “I want you to know that I am ashamed that my network aired this disgusting racist ad,” adding “It is the antithesis of everything I personally believe in, and what, I believe, our show is all about.”

To our @willandgrace fans—I want you to know that I am ashamed that my network aired this disgusting racist ad. It is the antithesis of everything I personally believe in, and what, I believe, our show is all about. @nbc pic.twitter.com/CLinZKHB47

— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) November 5, 2018

***

As we reported on Saturday, the ad has drawn criticism from the left, which has likened it to President George H.W. Bush’s 1988 “Willie Horton” ad featuring a black man who committed violent crimes against white people during a weekend pass from prison:

The Washington Post, meanwhile, reports that Trump’s ad featuring Bracamontes is based on a falsehood. 

“Democrats let him into our country,” the ad’s script reads. “Democrats let him stay.”

Just one problem: It doesn’t appear to be true.

Bracamontes, who had been deported multiple times before his crime rampage, appears to have last entered the country while George W. Bush was president, sometime between May 2001 and February 2002, when there is a record for his marriage in Arizona, according to the Sacramento Bee.

He lived near Salt Lake City until 2014, when a methamphetamine-fueled road trip ended with him murdering two Sacramento-area deputies, according to the newspaper.

The ad also failed to mention that in 1998, Bracamontes was arrested on drug charges in Phoenix, then released by the office of then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio “for reasons unknown,” the Bee reported. –WaPo

The “Sunday Night Football” version of the ad excluded the claim about Democrats, though it still drew a direct connection between the migrant caravan and crime. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2SNOs3G Tyler Durden

Authored by Ron Paul  via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh is being used to justify new infringements on liberty. Of course, opponents of gun rights are claiming this shooting proves America needs more gun control. Even some who normally oppose gun control say the government needs to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill.” Those making this argument ignore the lack of evidence that background checks, new restrictions on the rights of those alleged to have a mental illness, or any other form of gun control would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm.

Others are using the shooter’s history of posting anti-Semitic comments on social media to call for increased efforts by both government and social media websites to suppress “hate speech.” The shooter posted anti-Semitic statements on the social media site Gab. Gab, unlike Twitter and Facebook, does not block or ban users for offensive comments. After the shooting Gab was suspended by its internet service provider, and PayPal has closed the site’s account. This is an effort to make social media websites responsible for the content and even the actions of their users, turning the sites’ operators into thought police.

Some social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, are eager to silence not just bigots but those using their platforms to advocate for liberty. Facebook has recently banned a number of libertarian pages— including Cop Block, a site opposing police misconduct. Twitter has also banned a number of conservatives and libertarians, as well as critics of American foreign policy. Some libertarians say we should not get upset as these are private companies exercising private property rights. However, these companies are working with government and government-funded entities such as the Atlantic Council, a group funded by NATO and the military-industrial complex, to determine who should and should not be banned.

The effort to silence “hate speech” is not just about outlawing racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic speech. The real goal is to discredit, and even criminalize, criticism of the welfare-warfare state by redefining such criticism as “hate.” It is not just progressives who wish to use laws outlawing “hate speech” to silence political opponents. Some neoconservatives want to criminalize criticism of Israel for the nonsensical reason that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” Other right-wing authoritarians wish to expand hate crime laws to include crimes committed against police officers.

Ironically neoconservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are among the biggest purveyors of real “hate speech.” What could possibly be more hateful than speech advocating perpetual war? Cultural Marxists are also guilty of hate speech with their calls for both government and private violence against political opponents, and for the use of government force to redistribute property. Just about the only individuals advocating a political philosophy not based on hate are those libertarians who consistently advance the non-aggression principle.

Preserving the right to free speech is vital to preserving liberty. All who value freedom should fight efforts to outlaw “hate speech.” “Hate speech” laws may initially be used to target bigoted and other truly hateful speech, but eventually they will be used to silence all critics of the welfare-warfare state and the authoritarian philosophies that justify omnipotent government. To paraphrase Ludwig von Misses, libertarians must fight hate speech—including the hate speech emanating from Washington, D.C.— with the “ideas of the mind.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PO7h8h Tyler Durden