Month: September 2024

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

America’s corporate leaders plan to pull back on hiring over the next six months and expect a slowdown in sales, according to a survey of CEOs, which comes as cooling in the jobs market has prompted the Federal Reserve to deliver a significant 50 basis-point rate cut.

The Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook Survey, released on Sept. 18, paints a picture of a softening labor market and expectations for a decline in consumer spending.

The survey’s composite index, which measures CEO expectations for capital spending, hiring, and sales over the next six months, fell five points, to 79, in the latest survey. This marks the first time that the index has dipped below its historical average of 83 this year.

The drop in the index is largely driven by reduced hiring expectations and a sharp decrease in anticipated sales, despite a slight uptick in capital investment plans.

“This is the second consecutive quarter in which CEOs have reported they are moderating their hiring plans,” Business Roundtable CEO Joshua Bolten said in a statement.

Capital-investment plans showed a slight improvement, with the subindex tracking capital expenditures rising by three points, to 73. Bolten said this signals ongoing near-term business investment in things such as equipment and technology, which drive growth and productivity.

Sales expectations took a significant hit, however, with the sales subindex falling 13 points, to 110, in the latest survey. This suggests that CEOs are increasingly concerned about moderating demand for goods and services as the economy cools.

CEOs also reported more cautious hiring plans over the next six months, with the hiring subindex falling by five points, to 55. Despite the slowdown, less than 30 percent of the surveyed executives indicated they plan to cut headcount, a figure that is not far below the historical average. In addition, 37 percent of CEOs said they expect no change in their workforce, while 34 percent expect to increase hiring.

The decline in sales expectations could be influencing companies’ more conservative hiring strategies, with Bolten saying that the survey results seem broadly “consistent with the Fed’s perspective on a softening economy.”

The CEOs surveyed by the Business Roundtable predicted that the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would grow 2.3 percent for all of 2024. That’s a  slightly faster pace of growth than the 2.0 percent that Federal Reserve policymakers expect, according to the central bank’s latest economic projections, released on Sept. 18, as the Fed delivered an unusually large 50 basis-point rate cut, citing deteriorating labor market conditions.

“In the labor market, conditions have continued to cool. Payroll job gains averaged 116,000 per month over the past three months, a notable stepdown from the pace seen earlier in the year,” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said at a Sept. 18 press conference that followed the announcement of a rate cut—the first in four years.

“Nominal wage growth has eased over the past year, and the jobs-to-workers gap has narrowed,” Powell continued. “Overall, a broad set of indicators suggests that conditions in the labor market are now less tight than just before the pandemic in 2019.”

Powell said that as inflation has fallen closer to the Fed’s target of 2 percent and the labor market has cooled, the downside risks to employment have risen.

Fed officials now expect the unemployment rate to rise to 4.4 percent by the end of the year, up from 4.2 percent currently, and sharply higher than the 4.0 percent they projected in June.

Signaling that an era of monetary easing has begun, the central bank chief said that the “recalibration” of the Fed’s policy would help boost the economy and shore up the labor market.

Investors and economists have become increasingly focused on cracks in the labor market and signs of slowing growth.

Job openings slumped to their lowest level in more than three years in July, according to the government’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, released on Sept. 4.

Layoffs for the month of August hit their highest level for the month in 15 years—excluding the pandemic recession of 2020—according to a recent Challenger, Gray & Christmas report.

“The labor market overall is softening,” Andrew Challenger, the firm’s senior vice president, said in a statement.

Hiring plans have also fallen to the lowest year-to-date total since Challenger, Gray & Christmas began tracking hiring plans in 2005.

Ohio Congressman Max Miller (R) was confronted by a journalist asking whether he would debate his congressional challenger — and his district’s predecessor — Dennis Kucinich, who penned a letter on ZeroHedge calling on Miller to debate him. The letter was published in June and sent directly to Miller’s staff. They confirmed receipt but did not accept nor decline the debate.

At Capitol Hill on Tuesday, a journalist with The Grayzone asked Rep. Miller about his unanswered challenge from the Hon. Kucinich, but Miller dodged, said “have a good one”, and briskly walked away. Watch below:

Congressman Max Miller refused to say whether he’d debate fmr Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, his challenger in Ohio’s 7th District.

Abruptly avoided a followup question and strode off: pic.twitter.com/Fd5LvhpmLP

— Liam Cosgrove (@cosgrove_iv) September 18, 2024

“I’ve done twenty townhalls… I believe that is the debate itself,” Miller said. “The fact that you’re here asking me this question I think is funny. Dennis should go out there and speak to the people of the 7th.”

Responding to Miller’s comments, Kucinich told ZeroHedge: “Since the start of the campaign earlier this year, I’ve had over 180 appearances at events and meetings in the district. I’ve always been someone who loves meeting people, and if elected, that’s the sort of congressman I’ll be.”

Miller takes the hawkish hardline on national security, having voted in favor of the most recent Ukraine supplemental bill (which allotted several billion for Taiwan and Israel too) and being among the minority of Republicans who voted against the Biggs-FISA amendment for that bill, which would have prevented “warrantless searches on Americans”. The amendment failed in a tie (212–212), meaning one member could have changed the outcome.

I would think that Max Miller’s extreme anti-Palestinian rhetoric, like calling to turn Gaza “into a parking lot,” is the operative context herepic.twitter.com/c5CoaPBxoY

— Austin Ahlman (@austinahlman) December 13, 2023

Miller also called for Gaza to be turned into a “parking lot” at the start of the Gaza conflict:

In his letter challenging Miller to debate, Kucinich made these issues a sticking point. He wrote: “The escalating wars in the Middle East and Europe threaten to plunge us into the abyss of World War 3. In this critical moment in our nation’s history, it is our duty to engage in open and honest discourse about the path forward.”

Kucinich ran for president in 2004 as a staunch opponent of the Iraq War — introducing 35 articles of impeachment against former President George Bush — and later criticized former President Barack Obama following the 2011 military intervention in Libya.

ZeroHedge continues to offer both candidates the opportunity to debate with a neutral moderator of their choosing. We hope Miller will accept.

Submitted by Brent Johnson and Michael Peregrine of Santiago Capital.

Executive Summary

Currency carry trades, while seemingly straightforward, carry significant risks due to their reliance on interest rate differentials between countries. Investors borrow in a low-interest currency, like the yen, to invest in higher-yielding assets.

These trades are often unhedged and leveraged, magnifying potential profits but also exposing investors to substantial risks, especially if interest rates or currency values shift unexpectedly. The biggest risk is the implicit assumption that these differentials will remain stable, which rarely holds true over the long term.

Historically, even fixed currency pegs, such as those attempted by the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of England, have failed due to unsustainable capital flows. Despite the lessons learned from past failures, such as when the U.S. decoupled the dollar from the gold standard in 1971, investors are often lured by the allure of stable, easy returns from carry trades.

However, carry trades can appear benign for years before unraveling catastrophically, leading to sudden and severe market volatility. This was the case in the recent yen carry trade crisis of August 2024.

The BoJ now faces a dilemma: Do they protect the Yen with higher interest rates? Or protect the Japanese government bond market with lower rates.

They cannot do both.

This is because the tools used to protect their currency conflict with the tools used to protect the bond market. And vice versa.

To protect a currency, A central bank will typically raise interest rates to make the currency more attractive to investors, which can help stabilize or increase its value. However, higher interest rates increase borrowing costs, leading to lower bond prices and rising yields, which can destabilize the bond market. This dynamic creates a policy dilemma, particularly in economies heavily reliant on debt, as higher yields can hurt economic growth and raise concerns about government debt sustainability.

On the other hand, protecting the bond market requires central banks to keep interest rates low, which supports bond prices and keeps borrowing costs manageable for governments and businesses. However, lower interest rates tend to weaken a currency by making it less attractive to investors seeking higher returns. A weaker currency can fuel inflation by increasing the cost of imports, particularly in energy-dependent economies. Central banks are thus caught in a balancing act, where prioritizing one market often exacerbates risks in the other, making it difficult to maintain stability across both simultaneously.

This is all happening as the same time the U.S. Federal Reserve is nearing a potential interest rate easing cycle, creating a squeeze on yen carry trade investors who face rate increases in Japan and potential rate cuts in the U.S.

One of the ironies associated with the recent volatility ascribed to the Yen carry trade is that we have seen this same thing many times in the recent past. The 2008 global financial crisis offers a stark example of carry trade failure. At the time, Yen carry trades funded investments in higher-yielding assets worldwide. When risk aversion surged, investors unwound their positions, leading to a sharp yen appreciation and widespread losses.

Similarly, the Swiss National Bank’s abandonment of its euro currency peg in 2015 resulted in significant losses for those engaged in Swiss franc carry trades, as the franc appreciated by up to 30% overnight.

Iceland’s experience in 2008 is another reminder of the dangers of carry trades. Investors borrowed in low-interest currencies, like the yen, to invest in Icelandic assets. When the financial crisis hit, Iceland’s currency collapsed, leading to the implosion of its banking sector and a severe economic recession.

The Yen carry trade crisis of August 2024 is likely far from over. With the BoJ continuing to raise rates while global monetary policy diverges, the potential for further market disruptions remains high. As interest rate differentials shift between Japan and other economies, particularly the U.S., central banks are left with limited policy options.

The choice between protecting a nation’s currency or its bond market becomes increasingly difficult, and the volatility in global financial markets may continue to escalate as a result.

Investors and policymakers alike must understand the dynamics associated with carry trades as the turbulence associated with them can strike out of nowhere, and there is nothing to indicate these risks have been fully removed from the global landscape.

Background

The Japanese Economy and the Challenges facing the Bank of Japan

Japan has been grappling with economic stagnation and deflation since the early 1990s, following the bursting of its asset price bubble.

The “lost decades” that ensued were characterized by sluggish economic growth, persistently low (negative) inflation, and a declining population. These challenges led the Bank of Japan (BoJ) to adopt a series of unconventional monetary policies in an effort to revive the economy.

The BoJ’s strategy included maintaining near-zero interest rates and engaging in large-scale asset purchases (quantitative easing) to inject liquidity into the financial system and stimulate economic activity.

Despite these efforts, Japan struggled to achieve its inflation target of 2%, with inflation remaining stubbornly low or even negative for extended periods. This prolonged period of deflationary pressure led to the introduction of yield curve control (YCC) in 2016, a policy aimed at keeping long-term interest rates low by capping the yield on 10-year Japanese government bonds (JGBs) at around 0%.

Yield Curve Control and Its Implications

Yield curve control was designed to anchor borrowing costs across the Japanese economy, encouraging investment and spending. By keeping long-term rates low, the BoJ aimed to stimulate economic growth and push inflation closer to its target. However, this policy also had significant implications for Japan’s financial system and its currency.

Under YCC, the BoJ became the dominant buyer of JGBs, amassing a substantial portion of the market (around 50% of all issuances) and effectively controlling long-term interest rates. While this helped to keep borrowing costs low, it also meant that Japan’s interest rates remained exceptionally low compared to those in other developed economies, especially as global economic conditions began to  change.

Global Monetary Tightening and the Interest Rate Differential

The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent recovery period led to a dramatic shift in global monetary policy.

As economies reopened and demand surged, inflationary pressures mounted worldwide. Supply chain shocks and bottlenecks, in addition to increasing trade tensions between the US and China also compounded inflation pressures in the COVID aftermath.

In the United States and Europe, inflation reached multi-decade highs, driven by supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and rising energy prices. In response, central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB) began to tighten monetary policy aggressively.

The Federal Reserve in particular embarked on a series of rapid interest rate hikes to combat inflation, moving away from the ultra-loose policies that had characterized the previous decade.

This tightening created a significant interest rate differential between Japan and other major economies, particularly the United States. As U.S. interest rates rose, the yield on U.S. assets became increasingly attractive to global investors compared to the near-zero yields on Japanese assets.

This shift in investor preference put downward pressure on the yen, as capital flowed out of Japan and into higher-yielding U.S. assets.

The Global Energy Crisis and Trade Imbalances

The yen’s decline was further exacerbated by the global energy crisis that unfolded in 2022. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year sent shockwaves through global energy markets, driving up the prices of oil, natural gas, and other commodities.

Japan, as one of the world’s largest importers of energy, was particularly vulnerable to these price increases. The cost of importing energy soared, leading to a sharp deterioration in Japan’s trade balance.

A widening trade deficit typically weakens a country’s currency, as more of the currency is sold to pay for imports than is bought by foreign buyers of exports. In Japan’s case, the situation was compounded by the already declining yen, which made energy imports even more expensive in yen terms.

This created a vicious cycle where the weak yen increased the cost of imports, further exacerbating the trade deficit, putting additional downward pressure on the currency and increasing domestic inflation pressures.

Speculative Pressure and Market Dynamics

As the yen continued to weaken, it attracted the attention of currency speculators. Speculative trading, driven by the expectation that the yen would continue to fall, intensified the currency’s decline. Traders, betting on further depreciation, engaged in short selling the yen, which added to the selling pressure.

This speculative activity amplified the yen’s decline, making it one of the worst-performing major currencies during this period.

The yen’s weakness became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as each round of selling led to more traders jumping on the bandwagon, expecting further declines. The speculative pressure also highlighted the vulnerability of currencies that are  perceived to be out of sync with global monetary trends, especially when central banks are seen as committed to policies that diverge from global norms.

Government and Central Bank Responses

Faced with the yen’s rapid depreciation and its potential negative impact on the economy, the Japanese government and the BOJ were compelled to take action. Initially, the response involved verbal interventions, with top officials, including Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki, expressing concern about the yen’s volatility and warning that excessive weakness could harm the economy.

These statements were intended to signal to the markets that the government was closely monitoring the situation and was prepared to act if necessary.

However, as the yen continued to fall, verbal interventions proved insufficient.

In September 2022, Japan intervened directly in the foreign exchange markets by selling U.S. dollars and buying yen, marking its first intervention in the currency markets since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1998.

The intervention was aimed at stabilizing the yen and curbing its rapid decline. While the intervention provided a temporary boost to the yen, it was not enough to reverse the broader trend, as the fundamental factors driving the yen’s weakness—such as the interest rate differential and the trade deficit—remained in place.

The BoJ, meanwhile, maintained its ultra-loose monetary policy despite growing pressure to adjust its approach. Then-BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda emphasized the need to support Japan’s economic recovery and argued that tightening policy prematurely could derail progress toward the bank’s inflation target.

This stance was based on the view that Japan’s inflation, which was primarily driven by external factors like energy prices, would not be sustained without stronger domestic demand. The BoJ’s commitment to its existing policy framework, despite the yen’s decline, underscored the challenges of balancing domestic economic priorities with the realities of a rapidly changing global financial environment.

Impact on the Japanese Economy

The yen crisis had mixed effects on the Japanese economy. On the one hand, the weaker yen benefited Japan’s export-oriented industries by making Japanese goods more competitive in international markets.

Major exporters, such as Toyota, Sony, and other manufacturers, saw their profits increase as they earned more yen per unit of foreign currency. This helped boost corporate earnings and supported Japan’s stock market.

On the other hand, the weaker yen significantly increased the cost of imports, particularly energy and raw materials. This contributed to rising input costs for Japanese businesses, squeezing profit margins for companies that relied on imported goods. For consumers, the weaker yen led to higher prices for imported products, contributing to a rise in consumer inflation.

While inflation remained below the BoJ’s 2% target, the cost-push nature of the inflation – driven by higher import costs rather than strong domestic demand – raised concerns about the sustainability of price increases and the impact on household purchasing power.

The yen crisis of August 2024 was years in the making and has several long-term implications for Japan and the global financial system. It has highlighted the imbalances that can build up in a world of ultra-low (and even negative) interest rates combined with a global marketplace.

The crisis also underscored the challenges of managing a currency in an environment of divergent monetary policies and global financial volatility. It also serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of financial markets and the potential for currency volatility to spill over into other areas of the economy.

There have been many other examples of “carry crises”, where there is an underlying implicit assumption that currency valuations will remain constant. Indeed, almost invariably, currency movements have been seismic at the very times that they were widely expected to be most stable.

It is also important to note that all other things being equal, currency hedging costs tend to eat up the respective differences between currencies. This typically removes any advantages of currency hedging, making all such carry trades completely vulnerable to such tectonic shifts.

In that context, it is worth examining historical examples and consequences of such carry trades.

Continue reading at the Macro Alchemist.

Delta Air Lines is the latest international carrier to extend its cancelation of flights to Israel, amid the growing war in Israel’s north with Hezbollah.

Delta announced Thursday it is pausing all flights between New York-JFK and Tel Aviv through December 31, citing escalating security concerns. This extends a prior pause which was set to end on September 30. IDF operations are approaching the one year mark in Gaza, while Israel’s war cabinet has approved fresh offensive operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Starting a month ago United Airlines removed all flights to Israel from its booking and scheduling system. “Our flights to Tel Aviv remain suspended – we look forward to resuming flights as soon as it’s safe for our customers and crew,” it said early August.

Some European airlines have actually recently resumed operations to Israel. That current a total of three major US companies have halted their service to Tel Aviv has angered Israeli officials and pro-Israel pundits:

The refusal by the top three US airlines to fly to Israel since the Oct. 7 terrorist attack has sent fares soaring for flights to Tel Aviv — and has essentially led to an economic boycott that benefits its sworn enemy Iran, critics charged.

Delta, United and American have upheld a nearly yearlong suspension of direct flights to Israel in the wake of the Hamas massacre, leaving national carrier El Al as the only airline offering non-stop service. Prices, however, have increased nearly threefold.

“The American carriers are playing into Iran’s game,” Eyal Hulata, who served as national security adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, told Bari Weiss’ online media outlet The Free Press.

Delta and other have warned of cancelations on a rolling bases, and have urged customers to be flexible, while offering travel vouchers in place of canceled flights.

UK Foreign Secretary Calls On British Nationals To Vacate Lebanon Amid Escalating Israeli Airstrikes | Sahara Reporters https://t.co/rfEcBid28Y pic.twitter.com/IFD7vCiY8t

— Sahara Reporters (@SaharaReporters) September 19, 2024

An Israeli publication has offered the following list of carriers who previously canceled service to Tel Aviv as follows…

(This item is up-to-date as of September 12, 2024).

• United Airlines has canceled flights to Israel til further notice, while Delta has canceled flights until September 30 [now extended to Dec.31] (flights will continue to operate under an El-Al codeshare) American Airlines has canceled flights until March 2025. This means El Al is currently the sole airline operating direct flights between the US and Israel.
• Croatia Airlines has suspended its flights without specifying a return date.
• Vueling from Spain has previously canceled its flights to and from Israel until October, yet upon checking the company’s website, it seems all flights have been removed until January of next year. Vueling has not issued an official announcement regarding the continuation of operations in Israel, and flights may be added to the system later.
• LOT Polish Airlines has resumed flights to and from Israel on Sept. 6.
• The Lufthansa Group, which includes Swiss, Lufthansa, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, and Eurowings, resumed flights as of Sept. 5. The German airline said it was halting all connections to and from Tel Aviv and Tehran through Sept. 19. The airline had resumed its flights to Israel on Sept. 5. Flights to Beirut will only resume Sept. 30.
• Air Baltic said it would soon resume flights to Israel
• Ryanair from Ireland has canceled flights to Israel until October 26.
• Air India has suspended flights to and from Israel until October 24, and ticket sales on its website are blocked until October 27.
• Iberia has extended its flight cancellations to Israel until August 28.
• ITA Airways resumed flights on Sept. 3.
• Air France has announced that it would not fly to Israel until Oct. 26 at the earliest.
• The low-cost Transavia canceled flights to Tel Aviv through March 31, 2025.

After the post rate-cut meltup sent stocks to record highs on Thursday – even though the S&P was actually flat during the cash session with all gains taking place during the Asian/European sessions…

… the sweet taste of victory for the bulls was diluted moments ago when one of the most important logistic bellwethers for the US economy left a proverbial turd in the punchbowl after Fedex stock tumbled as much as 11% after hours when it cut the top end of its full-year profit outlook and reported quarterly earnings below expectations on softer demand for package deliveries.

This is what FedEx reported for fiscal Q1:

• Revenue $21.6 billion, missing estimates of $21.93 billion
• Adjusted EPS $3.60, down from $4.37 YoY, and missing estimates of $4.77
• Adjusted operating income $1.21 billion, missing estimate $1.63 billion
• Adjusted operating margin 5.6%, missing estimate 7.41%

The company said that Q1 results were negatively affected by a mix shift, which reduced demand for priority services, increased demand for deferred services, and constrained yield growth. In addition, higher operating expenses and one fewer operating day negatively affected the quarter’s results. A reduction of structural costs from the company’s DRIVE program initiatives partially offset these factors.

“Despite a challenging quarter, we remain focused on transforming our network, improving our efficiency, lowering our cost-to-serve, and enhancing our ability to adapt with speed to evolving market dynamics,” said Raj Subramaniam, FedEx Corp. president and chief executive officer. “Overall, I remain confident in the value-creation opportunities ahead as we focus on reducing our structural cost, growing revenue profitably, and leveraging the insights from our vast collection of data as we continue to build the world’s most flexible, efficient and intelligent network.”

While not as ugly as the Q1 miss, the fiscal 2025 guidance was also cut, as follows:

• A low single-digit percentage revenue growth rate year over year, compared to the prior forecast of a low-to-mid single digit percentage increase;
• Adjusted EPS of $20.00 to $21.00 compared to the prior forecast of $20.00 to $22.00 per share
• Capital spending of $5.2 billion, same as the previous forecast and below the consensus estimate of $5.26 billion.
• Permanent cost reductions from the DRIVE transformation program of $2.2 billion;

“Our revised outlook reflects our continued confidence in the execution of our DRIVE initiatives and the effects of our recent pricing actions, which we expect to help offset weaker-than-expected demand trends,” said John Dietrich, FedEx Corp. executive vice president and chief financial officer. “We will continue to manage our capital prudently, and remain committed to our plan to return $3.8 billion to stockholders this fiscal year.”

Well aware the market would throw up all over its earnings, the company also announced it completed a $1 billion accelerated share repurchase (ASR) transaction during the quarter (approximately 3.4 million shares were delivered under the ASR agreement, with the decrease in outstanding shares benefiting first quarter results by $0.03 per diluted share) and also annnounced a new stock repurchase program for an additional $1.5 billion of common stock during fiscal 2025, for a buyback total of $2.5 billion. However, that was not enough, and the stock plunged as much as 11% after hours, before stabilizing some 9% lower, and erasing virtually all the stock price gains since its much better than expected Q4 earnings report 3 months ago…

… and in doing so, confirming that there was nothing unexpected about Powell’s “emergency/crisis” 50bps rate cut.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Cynically running out the clock has been the overarching principle of the entire abbreviated 105-day presidential campaign of Kamala Harris—ever since Joe Biden, at the 11th-hour, dropped out in July.

Harris seems unwilling or unable to answer any impromptu question that she has not been previously prepped for. Her answers at the debate were memorized and canned. They never addressed the questions asked.

Her single, 11-minute post-debate Philadelphia interview was a shipwreck of dodging and dissimulating—even though the host was sympathetically left-wing.

Even socialist Bernie Sanders pointed out that for Harris to get elected, she must temporarily disown her lifelong leftist credentials.

As vice president, she must further deny co-ownership of the unpopular record of the Biden-Harris administration.

Left unstated is that whether she wins the presidency—or loses it and continues as vice president for another three months—nonetheless she will inevitably revert back to her hard-core, lifelong leftist beliefs.

In addition, Harris has reconstructed her privileged upbringing as a child of two PhDs, living in a posh Montreal neighborhood into a struggling, middle-class Oakland childhood.

How can she stage such a complete makeover—and contemptuously count on the voting public to be so easily deceived?

She avoids all news conferences, one-on-one nationally broadcast interviews, and town halls. And like Biden, she will debate only on leftist venues with impartial pro-Harris moderators.

When asked to provide the details of her past responsibility for the open border, inflationary economy, spiraling crime, attacks on fossil fuels, and collapsing foreign policy, Harris smiles, makes hand gestures, and dodges. She changes the subject to her empathetic personality, her “joy” campaign, and her iconic profile as a supposedly dynamic black woman.

When pressed, Harris outsources the task of squaring her hypocrisies and subterfuges to the stonewalling campaign, Democratic surrogates—and the media.

Harris is also certainly not running on her demonstrable experience, vision, or intelligence as much as she is not Trump (or, for that matter, her former partner Joe Biden).

To make that distinction stark, Harris must demonize and bait Trump nonstop and make the country fear him.

So, she paints Trump as a racist and violent insurrectionist, not a former president whose four-year term saw a superior foreign policy, economy, border, and security than during the Biden-Harris term.

Instead, Harris has repeatedly claimed Trump is a dictator and a threat to democracy—as if he had politically weaponized the FBI, CIA, DOJ, or IRS as had Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Trump as Hitler has become a staple Democrat smear for the past decade.

That vicious caricature is so entrenched that major Democratic figures assume it’s okay to joke about, or seriously call for, Trump’s demise.

So, Harris’s current prominent advisor David Plouffe years ago warned the nation that “it is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”

Just last year, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) claimed that Trump “is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be, he has to be eliminated.”

Even after an assassin sought to kill Trump last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared, “Extreme MAGA Republicans are the party of a national abortion ban and Trump’s Project 2025. We must stop them.”

Harris’s dehumanizing of Trump, outsourcing the campaign to the media, avoiding all public dialogue, and temporarily reinventing one’s politics and biography have taken a toll on the country.

Harris was coronated the Democratic candidate without ever entering a primary or winning a single delegate by vote. Some 14 million Democrat primary voters were reduced to irrelevancy.

Like the 2020 Biden campaign, Harris has nationalized a new kind of cynical campaign in which leftist candidates seek for a few months to deceive the public into thinking they are centrist and moderate—until elected.

Avoiding all cross-examination and outscoring the campaign to the obsequious media is now the new norm.

Most news stories deemed unhelpful to Harris—the left-wing, pro-Harris politics of the recent would-be Trump assassin, the lie that dozens of bomb threats were called in against Springfield schools due to Trump, or prominent Democrats before and after the recent assassination attempt blaming Trump for being the target of an assassin—are suppressed by the media.

The recent two foiled assassination attempts on Trump logically follow a near-decade pattern of trying to destroy rather than outvote him.

The Russian collusion hoax, the laptop disinformation con, the two impeachments, the effort to remove Trump from some 16 state ballots, and the attempt to jail and bankrupt Trump through five criminal and civil “lawfare” indictments and suits also led to the current hateful climate of Trump assassination attempts.

Harris thinks her delays, deceptions, and vilifications for the next 47 days will ensure her victory.

But if so, it will be because she, her stealth campaign, and her self-proclaimed guardians of democracy have been willing to systematically destroy it.

Springfield, Ohio, and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, are just 3.5 hours apart along Interstate 70, yet both towns are suffering from a massive influx of Haitian migrants dumped by the federal government. According to separate reports (read: here & here), staffing agencies in these towns are operating a complex, mysterious van network, ferrying the migrants from their homes, which some are stuffed in like cattle, to local area factories. 

On Wednesday, former WSJ reporter Asra Nomani revealed that in Springfield, the actual story in the small town overwhelmed by Haitians “is not about cats or dogs”…  it’s about a complex “hidden human trafficking network” operated by some staffing companies. 

Nomani said, “Just about every week since 2019, First Diversity Staffing Group Inc. has shuttled vulnerable Haitian migrants in unmarked white Ford and Chevy vans from Florida to Ohio, where they are allegedly exploited for cheap labor by companies like Dole Food Company Inc.,” adding, “It is a secretive and sinister operation that has gone unchecked for more than five years.” 

Nomani even identified a local Springfield businessman exploiting cheap labor and skimming wages off each migrant. Essentially, this alleged labor trafficking migrant scheme is modern-day slavery. She added that FBI anti-trafficking agents and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost are now investigating. 

Heading east to Charleroi, a small town where Haitians make up half the population, a murder-for-hire scheme from 2022 has captured our attention.

 Charleroi residents in a private Facebook group are raising concerns… 

In late 2023, prosecutors in Pennsylvania alleged that Keven Van Lam, 57, ordered and financed a hit on a man who he paid $800k for a staffing company in 2019 that controlled about “500 temporary workers to a Charleroi-based meat packer,” local paper Trib Live wrote one year ago. 

Trib Live did not mention the name of the meat packing facility. However, a resident of the tiny town said the focus should be on Fourth Street Foods, a food manufacturer that produces frozen food products for the processed foods industrial complex. These foods are sold in major retail stores throughout the US. 

Lam was charged with criminal homicide, solicitation to commit homicide, conspiracy, and tamping with evidence after paying a hitman $65k to kill Boyke Budiarachman, the man who Lam bought the staffing company from. 

Trib Live explained how Lam believed Budiarachman, who sold him the staffing company of 500 temporary workers [migrants], was “sabotaging” it, forcing him to “make biweekly $8,000 additional payments to ensure his employees remained working at the meat packing plant, where Budiarachman worked as a human resources employee.”

Now that’s a shady business dealing! Hello, US lawmakers… See this:

Full video here: https://t.co/XSnt3y0RVM

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 17, 2024

After selling the staffing company, Lam claimed Budiarachman operated a separate staffing company and diverted workers from his company to work at the plant. 

Lam told police: “I was losing business (because) of him and he’s taking my people.” 

The murder-for-hire plot in Charleroi is an eye-opener to staffing companies that appear to have control over these migrants, which appear to be exploiting cheap labor, not just in the tiny Pennsylvania town but also in Springfield. There is no confirmation if labor mules in both towns are connected. 

There’s a very real possibility this is happening nationwide…

US Map Shows Potential Areas Of Migrant ‘Great Job Replacement’ https://t.co/L0IfntWwmK

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 19, 2024

Apparently, there’s a lot of money to be made in this alleged labor trafficking system of migrants, as shown in the Trib Live report.

One resident told the ex-WSJ journo: “What we’re witnessing in Springfield is modern-day slavery.” 

Look past the cats and dogs, focusing on the staffing companies and factories that are using these migrants. That’s the story of the century.

Also, this is all happening because of foreign policy pushed by the State Department. 

Guess who loses here, the native-born worker. This is not America First – this is globalist open border corporate profits first. 

Authored by Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson and Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House on Sept. 18 failed to pass a temporary spending fix that would have forestalled a government shutdown.

The GOP measure, which would have extended the government funding deadline by six months, was rejected by the House in a 202–220 vote, including 14 Republicans who voted against it. Three Democrats supported the bill. Two members voted “present.”

Aside from punting the funding deadline from Sept. 30 to March 2025, a measure known as a continuing resolution, the bill included the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the plan and have called instead for a three-month stopgap bill with no policy riders, known as a “clean” continuing resolution. They rejected the SAVE Act, arguing it’s an unnecessary measure because existing laws already bar noncitizens from voting.

Republican objections to the spending plan came from various camps. Some Republicans object to the use of continuing resolutions; others believe that the spending figures were too high; and some say a six-month stopgap would leave the military underfunded for too long.

With the bill’s failure, House Republican leaders will go back to the drawing board with 12 days left until government funding runs dry. Several Republican members told The Epoch Times that they believe that leadership will ultimately adopt a clean continuing resolution with Democrats’ help.

No Republican Consensus

The vote on the legislation was originally slated for last week, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pulled it from the floor early on Sept. 11 after opposition from Republicans and Democrats alike. He said then that the bill was still in the “consensus-building” phase.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has expressed opposition to continuing resolutions on principle, saying he wants Congress to pass the required 12 funding bills individually, rather than wrapping them into continuing resolutions or massive end-of-year omnibus spending bills.

“Whether Democrats are in control or Republicans are in control, we never do the 12 separate bills,” he said, referring to the dispute as “political theater.”

Although the inclusion of the SAVE Act was designed to make the measure more palatable to Republicans who would otherwise oppose it, many were critical of the move, describing it as a “show vote” that has no chance to either become law or be implemented before Election Day.

“I don’t know what’s changed over the weekend to think that you put this on the floor tomorrow, it’s going to pass,” Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times the night before the vote.

Still, Nehls said there was some value in forcing Democrats to go on the record with a vote on the issue.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told reporters ahead of the vote that he planned to support the legislation, arguing that it would be better to deal with funding under a new president.

“I firmly believe that you cannot find that compromise with this current White House. It should be left to the next president of the United States,” Donalds said.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the House has allocated more money for the Department of Veterans Affairs than what the Biden administration requested.

Cole said that the SAVE Act is crucial given the crisis at the southern border.

“I’m extraordinarily perplexed that the idea of reaffirming in a time of unmitigated disaster at the southern border that you’ve got to be an American citizen to vote in an election is somehow controversial,” he said.

Democrats Promised to Kill the Bill

Ahead of the vote, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, noted that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

“This bill is an admission that the House Republican majority cannot govern,” she said.

DeLauro went on to claim that the bill “abandons our military, our Social Security recipients, and our cities and families who are grappling with disasters and no disaster relief.”

Even if the bill had passed the House, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had indicated that he wouldn’t bring it to a vote in the upper chamber. Schumer described the SAVE Act as a “poison pill.”

“Democrats support a [continuing resolution] to keep the government open. As I have said before, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way,” he wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter.

President Joe Biden had also promised to veto the bill.

The failure of the legislation brings leaders back to square one on funding the government. Of the 12 appropriations bills that need to be passed each year, the House has passed five, but none of these have been taken up in the Senate because of the inclusion of controversial culture war provisions.

The Senate has passed no funding bills to date.

Historically, when government funding comes due in September, lawmakers have punted the issue until the end of December before passing 1,000-plus page omnibus spending legislation with the support of most Democrats and some Republicans.

Authored by Jenna McCarthy via Jennasside.rocks substack,

Somebody’s lying by the seat of their pants-on-fire…

When my childhood best friend Robbie was around five, an irresistible bit of artistic inspiration struck. Robbie decided to express this creative urge by decorating a billboard sized section of the family’s living room wall with crayons. Amid the colorful squiggles and scribbles, he wrote the very best word he knew as large as he could write it: ROBBIE.

It was a masterpiece.

“Not too bright, kid,” his older brother Mike snickered when he saw Robbie’s installment.

“Why not?” Robbie wondered aloud. He thought it was rather perfect.

“Because you wrote your name. Now Mom’s going to know you did it.”

According to family lore, when Mom later discovered Robbie’s handiwork, he had deftly scratched out his name and replaced it with another, even larger word he also knew well: MOM. His thinking, of course, was obviously she’ll think she did it.

(Robbie is a legend.)

I find this story a comical analogy for today’s warped political landscape, with democrats scribbling DICTATOR and FASCIST and WARMONGERING and THREAT TO DEMOCRACY all over everything they touch and then crossing out DEMOCRAT and replacing it with REPUBLICAN *maybe nobody will notice*.

In psychological circles, the tactic is called projection, and it’s used to deflect suspicion, criticism, and accountability. A classic example is when a cheating spouse accuses their committed partner of being unfaithful. Most of us [who are not in fact getting some side action and hoping to continue to get away with it] wouldn’t respond to such an allegation with, “I’m certainly not cheating, but I bet you are!” No, our instinct would be to try to defend ourselves. We’d ask out partner why on earth they would think such a thing and wonder what we’d done to sow a seed of doubt. We’d concentrate on being doting and loving and affectionate and steadfast. If we *did* have some quiet concerns about our partner’s fidelity, we’d promptly sweep them right under the rug. To do anything else would be the picture of paranoia. I mean, what sort of psychopath accuses an innocent someone else of doing precisely what they are doing?

In a word: DEMOCRATS.

Let’s look at some of the colorful words the left tries to paint conservatives with, and then explore some fun facts, shall we?

DICTATOR

Oh, how liberals love to play the dictatorial fear porn card. Donald Trump is a fascist! He called the (rigged) election rigged! He wants to impose congressional term limits! He’ll willy-nilly fire people [cough-James-Comey-cough] who conduct half-assed “investigations” into his dirty opponents! He calls the beloved and clearly unbiased media “the enemy of the people.” His rhetoric and policies reflect a grotesque nationalism that prioritizes American interests and identity over global cooperation! He respects Vladimir Putin, a man who wants to defend and protect his country from outside threats (that we perpetually fund)! Obviously he’s the next Stalin (even though he advocates for the exact opposite of collectivization)! Be very afraid.

I don’t know if anyone has noticed this, but Kamala Harris is currently representing 45 million registered democrats even though not a single one of them directly voted for her. (I feel like Biden’s middle finger MAGA hat salute says more than words ever could about how he feels about that.) She represents the side that wanted to force every person on the planet to inject experimental toxins into their bodies. She has said she will issue executive orders—you know, the kind that bypass the legislative process—to protect immigrants and criminals and the climate. But Momala couldn’t be a dictator in disguise! That’s fake news. Obviously.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Ah, yes. Democrats are deeply concerned with women’s rights to abort their unborn babies bodily autonomy. And nobody cares about your-body-your-choice more than Kamala The Uterus Czar Harris.

Also you can’t work for her unless you’re vaccinated. But you know, transgender surgeries for illegal immigrants and abortions for everyone!

Democrats spit fire when they talk of Trump “banning abortion,” when what his SCOTUS appointees effectively did was return regulatory power to the states. What abortion lovers may not realize is that granting the federal government sweeping power over issues of bodily autonomy is actually the far more dangerous position. (Do China’s one-child policy and sex-selective abortions ring a bell? Is it inconceivable that a future American administration could try to control reproduction in the name of social justice or inclusion?) In a state managed system, there will always be somewhere you can go where your values are promoted and upheld.

MISINFORMATION

In The War on Ivermectin, my coauthor Dr. Pierre Kory and I describe what the left dubbed “misinformation” during the pandemic as “any factual data that was inconvenient to the narrative.” Natural immunity? Misinformation. Vaccines won’t prevent infection or transmission? Misinformation. Masks that never worked for any virus in history still not working against Covid? Misinformation. Lockdowns will have harmful economic, mental health, and social effects? Misinformation. Cheap, off-patent, EUA-threatening drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine can treat Covid? Misinformation. The now generally accepted lab-leak theory? Misinformation.

Anti-vaxxers. Conspiracy theorists. Science deniers. Public health threats. Quack advocates. Those of us sharing factual data that was inconvenient to the narrative were called all of these things and more. These ad hominem attacks became the number one weapon of the “safe and effective” side. Can’t refute the science? Silence the messenger. Capture all of the scientific journals. Buy out the media. Repeat ad nauseum. Easy peasy.

WARMONGERING

A warmonger (and sorry for always being so damned literal, but it’s my job), is a person, leader, or group that advocates for, promotes, or deliberately seeks war or conflict, often for political, economic, or ideological reasons. To hear the media tell it, Trump is the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great rolled into one bellicose political baron. (Maybe journalists don’t actually know what the word warmongering means? Seems likely.)

Ironically, Trump was the first US president in decades not to initiate a major military conflict while in office. He has pledged to end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of reassuming office. (I’m not saying he can do it, but you don’t hear Hahaharris promising to end any wars.) During his presidency, Trump reduced tensions with North Korea and Iran, played nice with China, and worked to bring our troops home from “endless wars” we had no business fighting IMO around the globe. Meanwhile, our current administration has us teetering closer to the brink of WWIII than anytime in the last half decade. If the US’s nonstop support of military aid to Ukraine and Taiwan isn’t a provocation of war… remine me what would be?

LIAR

• “In this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling…”

• “Well, as I said, you’re going to hear a bunch of lies…”

• “Yet again, I said it at the beginning of this debate, you’re going to hear a bunch of lies coming from this fella…”

These quotes are from a woman who, according to an ABC whistleblower in a sworn affidavit, received “sample questions” that mirrored the actual debate questions in advance, was promised that Trump would be fact-checked during the debate and she would not, and was assured that no questions regarding Biden’s health, her tenure as AG in San Francisco, or her brother-in-law Tony West (an attorney, former government official, and Senior VP of Uber who has been accused of some seriously sketchy crap and who would likely be involved in her administration if elected) would be allowed. But just so we’re clear, Trump’s the liar.

DANGEROUS TO DEMOCRACY

You know what’s dangerous to democracy? The capture and collusion of the press. The silencing of free speech. The suppression of political opposition. The manipulation of public opinion. The authorization of pharmaceutical advertising. The dismissal of natural immunity and vaccine injury. The relentless and undeniable march toward one world government, CBDC, 15 minute prisons cities, and the inevitable social credit scores that will regulate all of it.

Kamala Harris repeatedly blames the cost of groceries on “price gouging.” It’s not the minimum wage hikes, or the skyrocketing rents, or the ever increasing cost of goods, services, repair, maintenance, fuel, utilities, overhead, insurance, licensing, loan interest, and transportation. It’s not because it costs the farmer twice as much to feed his chickens so he has to charge more for the eggs. It’s just those greedy supermarkets exploiting their market power—like an umbrella vendor doubling his prices the minute it starts misting. But don’t worry, she’ll crack down with all sorts of federal bans and increased regulations and expanded consumer protection laws somehow, magically, you’ll get cheaper eggs (I don’t understand it either but it sounds a lot like communism to me).

The very definition of democracy is a system of government in which power is derived from the consent of the governed. Which party wants you to limit your rights to speak freely, protect your family, and refuse the latest toxic Bill Gates-funded poison? (Hint: It’s not republicans.) Which party told the WHO, the UN, the WEF to pound sand? (Hint: It wasn’t democrats.)

A true threat to democracy is any action, behavior, or condition that undermines fair elections, individual rights, or the free access to unbiased information from an independent press. If you need me to tell you which party is the true threat, your TDS may be flaring up again. (Don’t worry, they’re working on a vaccine for that.)

In other news, I didn’t have the energy to cover yesterday’s second assassination attempt on President Trump but as always, Jeff Childers was on it bright and early. All I can say is that at least this time, the media is actually calling it what it was and not “some popping noises” in the general vicinity.

And for the love of all that is holy, could someone please get that man a bulletproof bubble? TIA.

Everything is so awesome under Bidenomics that The Fed needed to slash rates by 50bps yesterday to ‘sustain the economy’…?

And this afternoon, ‘President’ Biden will be dragged off the beach, juiced up with Adderall, and face the teleprompters to tell the American public just how lucky they are that the cost of living is still rising and wage growth is slowing…

Biden will address business executives on Thursday at a lunch hosted by the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., where he is anticipated to highlight his economic policies.

As Emel Akan reports via The Epoch Times, during the event, Biden is expected to tout progress made since taking office, including the United States’ response to the pandemic, and will blame the rise in inflation on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“President Biden is going to speak to a new milestone, inflation and interest rates are falling at the same time, employment, wages, and GDP are rising,” White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients told reporters during a call on Wednesday.

“I want to be really clear, this is not meant to be a declaration of victory. It’s meant to be a declaration of progress, significant progress.”

The Federal Reserve slashed interest rates on Wednesday, kicking off its first easing campaign since the pandemic.

The central bank policymakers lowered the benchmark federal funds rate by 50 basis points to a range of 4.75 percent to 5 percent following its policy meeting on Sept. 18.

Fed policymakers said in their statement that they have “gained greater confidence” in bringing inflation down and hence anticipate another 50-basis-point cut in interest rates this year.

Biden welcomed the announcement on social media platform X on Wednesday.

“The critics said it couldn’t happen—but our policies are lowering costs and creating jobs,” Biden said.

“I’ll speak tomorrow about what this means for Americans.”

The Fed’s move to lower rates for the first time in four years is important for consumers as it influences interest rates on credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, and other financial products, as well as savings accounts.

National economic adviser Lael Brainard also talked about the progress made during the call with reporters, stating that the Fed’s decision is a “clear signal that inflation has come back down.”

“The focus now has to be on sustaining the gains we’ve seen,” she said.

Brainard, however, noted that more work was required to improve labor force participation and bring down costs, notably housing prices, by developing millions of new affordable homes.

The central bank’s decision to sharply lower interest rates just ahead of November’s presidential election, however, met with some criticism from Republicans, including former President Donald Trump.

“I guess it shows the economy is very bad, to cut it by that much, assuming they’re not just playing politics,” Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, told reporters during a visit to a New York City bar on Wednesday.

“The economy would be very bad, or they’re playing politics. But it was a big cut.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) also reacted to the Fed’s decision.

“The Fed’s drastic rate cut is so shamelessly political,” Tuberville wrote in a post on X.

“Our nation’s central bank has no business moving rates this close to an election and is clearly trying to tip the balance in favor of Kamala Harris.”

Watch President Biden speak in public here (due to start at 1315ET):