iftttwall

The 20-year old Marine currently under military investigation for his half-minute Twitter video wherein he rants against China, blaming the country for coronavirus and threatening to shoot Chinese people which was posted this week is now subject of widespread Chinese media reporting.

This will likely create even bigger legal problems under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for Colorado native Jarrett Morford, who made the video at his training base in Twentynine Palms, California. 

The clip which is filled with racial expletives deriding Chinese people is now being upheld by Chinese state media’s top English-language mouthpiece as an example of Trump’s and America’s “vicious ideology” and “hatred” preached to the Chinese people:

What a vicious ideology that spurs such hatred for Chinese people from a young US soldier. Trump and the US political elites who preach that China should be held responsible for the pandemic have created this ideology. It’s a shame for the US as a democratic country. pic.twitter.com/6xyLklJfko

— Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) October 10, 2020

Hu Xijin is the highly visible editor-in-chief of China’s communist government-owned Global Times. Thus the video now appears to be factoring in to worsening Sino-US relations, as if anything else was needed for the continued downward spiral which includes military tensions in the region. 

“What a vicious ideology that spurs such hatred for Chinese people from a young US soldier,” Xijin wrote on Twitter Saturday. “Trump and the US political elites who preach that China should be held responsible for the pandemic have created this ideology. It’s a shame for the US as a democratic country.”

PFC Morford made the video while in uniform. “As the honorable Trump said on Twitter today, it was China’s fault,” the young Marine said. “China is going to pay for what they’ve done to this country and the world. I don’t give a f–k!”

Marine IDed in racist video threatening to shoot ch*nks

Accused of using racial slurs and threatening to shoot Chinese after quoting Trump that China would be made to pay for the coronavirus. https://t.co/3AckqoWx4H pic.twitter.com/a3vwfEQs1Y

— AsAmNews (@AsAmNews) October 9, 2020

And further, the Marine said in the video:

“If a ch*nk headed mother f*cker comes up to me when I’m in the fleet, say 556 b*tch. That’s all I gotta say. Say 556,” he is heard saying on Twitter.

556 reportedly refers to the 5.56 bullets used in firearms such as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

On Thursday the Marine Corps announced an investigation is underway and that “appropriate action” would would be taken. “There is no place for racism in the Marine Corps,” a Marine statement to Stars and Stripes said. “Those who can’t value the contributions of others, regardless of background, are destructive to our culture and do not represent our core values.”

Now it appears the stakes are higher, given we’ve entered the domain of international incident and angry denunciations out of Beijing.

Authored by Larry Johnson via Sic Semper Tyrannis blog,

One year before Jim Comey was immersed in his plot to overthrow Donald Trump, the duly elected President of the United States, a brave Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Department of State came forward with firsthand information of Hillary Clinton’s rampant abuse of Classified material. The man, a senior State Department diplomat who had served as the acting Ambassador (Chargé d’Affaires) in the Asia Pacific region under President Clinton, also was a veteran of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War.

The letter from this whistleblower is stunning and I am going to present it in total. It is dated 10 January 2016. You can read it for yourself here starting at page 121. I became aware of this letter thanks to the assiduous research and writings of Charles Ortel (he wrote about this recently at the American Thinker).

The letter explains in great detail how Hillary and her cabal of sychophants used an unclassified system to disseminate Top Secret and Secret intelligence. But the Senior Diplomat did not stop there. He explained carefully and specifically who the FBI needed to interview and the questions they needed to ask. You do not need to take my word for it. You can read the letter for yourself…

And what did the sanctimonious, smug buffoon heading up the FBI do? Nothing. But this senior Foreign Service Officer was dogged in making sure the FBI had the information. He called FBI Headquarters and could not get any confirmation that his letter was accepted. Not satisfied, he walked into the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The results of this meeting were reported to three FBI Agents working on the Hillary Clinton investigation. Named in the report are Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa (the third name is blacked out).

Here is the report in its entirety. Please note that the State Department official delivered the information on the 27th of January 2016, but the report was not written up until four weeks later–22 February 2016. (You can see the original on the FBI website here starting at page 11.)

I do not know if John Durham has seen these documents. I am posting to make sure that he does. There is no evidence that Inspector General Horowitz examined these documents or interviewed the Foreign Service Officer.

With Secretary of State Pompeo’s promise that Hillary emails will be forthcoming, I think it is worthwhile to revisit what this brave whistleblower tried to bring to the attention of the FBI, who clearly was hellbent on protecting Hillary rather than pursing justice and upholding the law.

Shameful.

Over the past few weeks, Wall Street has been busy carefully restructuring the post-election narrative to one where the tax hikes under a Biden presidency would actually be bullish for risk assets.

As a reminder, whereas there would be no changes to the tax regime under a 2nd Trump administration, Biden plans to lift the statutory corporate income tax rate by 7% to 33% from 26% (including federal and local) reversing half of the Trump cuts, raising taxes on high earners as well as implementing a number of other tax changes including an increased tax on global, low-tax, intangible (“GILTI”) income…

…  which the banks readily admit would adversely hit S&P500 earnings in 2022 by roughly 9%, pushing it from a Goldman baseline forecast of $188 to $171…

… yet ignore all that because, as per the new Wall Street narrative, the Biden admin would also unleash up to $7 trillion in fiscal stimulus which while catastrophic for the long-term viability of the US, its currency and its already ridiculous debt trajectory…

… would be good for stocks until some time in 2023, at which point even more stimulus will be needed (according to the latest Goldman research). As a result, and as we summarized last week, Wall Street now agrees that Biden victory and a Democratic sweep would be great for stocks despite the sharp increase in taxes across the board for many Americans and especially the Top 1…

… which as JPMorgan has shown previously, is the one issue where the two candidates differ the most.

It remains to be seen just how ‘good’ for stocks a sharp hit to EPS and a potential contraction in PE multiples – which would be sparked by Biden’s aggressively reflationary policies – will be under a Biden presidency, but one aspect of Biden’s tax policies that has received very little coverage is his proposal to increase the maximum tax rate for long-term capital gains by a whopping 66%, from 20% currently (23.8% when accounting for the additional 3.8% ACA tax) to as high as 39.6%, for those making over $1 million, or for proceeds of a business sale over $1 million. A summary of the changes tot he US tax code under a Biden admin is shown below.

While this cap gains increase won’t affect most Robinhood traders (except for the really talented ones), it will have a drastic hit on major market players and corporate strategies involving exit events that include more than $1 million in proceeds, as the following analysis from Benchmark Corporate shows: assume a $2.0M EBITDA (small or medium) business receives a valuation multiple of 10x for a total transaction value (taxable gain) of $20.0M. Under the Biden Plan, the seller would lose $3.92M in the sale. To receive the same net proceeds, a multiple of 13.2x would need to be secured.

This kind of dramatic revision to post-transaction cash flows under a Biden regime is – to say the least – concerning, although because the media has barely discussed Biden’s tax plan (or any of his other policies for that matter) and instead focusing on Trump, Trump, Trump, the impact of Biden’s tax long-term cap gains will come as a shock to the market.

It’s also why on Friday, JPMorgan was quick to jump on the bandwagon of Wall Street defenders of Biden tax proposals – after all no bank wants to see the markets puke in the coming weeks as traders lock in profits under the Trump admin – only instead of defending the corporate tax hike, this time it focused on Biden’s cap gains tax hike. Not surprisingly, it concludes that this too would have “little impact on risk taking and investors’ attitude toward equities as an asset class.”

But first, some background.

As JPM’s quant Nick Panigirtzoglou writes, while it is relatively easier to quantify the potential impact from Biden’s corporate tax or other proposals, assessing the potential impact from the proposed increase in the capital gains tax rate is more difficult. Biden’s proposal is for the maximum tax rate for long-term capital gains to rise to 39.6% from 23.8% currently, a 66% proportional rise. As the JPM strategist concedes, “given the size of the proposed increase, the potential impact is likely to be at least similar to previous  episodes of big capital gains tax rate hikes, i.e., the capital gains tax rate hikes of 1 January 1987 and 2013.”

Between the 1986 and 1987 tax years, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains had risen to 28% from 20%, a 40% proportional rise. Between the 2012 and 2013 tax years, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains had risen to 25.1% from 15%, a 67% proportional rise.

 

At this point, Panigirtzoglou launches an assessment of the potential impact from Biden’s proposed capital gains tax increase, in which he distinguishes between the longer-term and the near-term impact.

 

In terms of the longer-term impact, the quant falls back on conventional wisdom which says that “the friction from a higher capital gains tax would over time reduce capital mobility and investment and thus end up being negative for economic growth and thus for long-term equity market returns. The argument being that higher taxes on capital gains would lower the after-tax rate of return to savers, which in turn would raise the cost of capital to businesses. In addition, a higher capital gains tax rate could reduce incentives for entrepreneurship and risk taking.”

Needless to say, all of this is bad for the broader economy, which is why Panigirtzoglou is quick to admit that a full-blown analysis of the economic impact of a capital gains tax hike “is beyond the scope of this publication” which is ironic because the very next thing he does is an attempt to spin it as favorable because, as he writes, “in a low yield and high equity risk premium environment like the one we are at the moment (Figure 3), any longer term impact from a capital gains tax rate hike on risk taking and investors’ attitude towards equities as an asset class would be even more muted relative to the past.”

In other words, under the massive yield and volatility suppression of the current Fed regime, despite the adverse impact of higher taxes, investors will still have no choice but to go back to stocks.

One wonders how this argument will be “spun” if after a few years of Biden’s trillions in fiscal stimulus, the current “low yield and high equity risk premium” environment is dramatically reversed. Of course, we are confident that JPM will have a bullish spin for that when the time comes.

And just in case that was not enough, Panigirtzoglou then suggests another “positive” aspect of higher cap gains taxes: “an  argument could be made that the money invested by individuals in the equity market would likely become more sticky over time as a result of the increase in the capital gains tax rate, perhaps inducing lower long-term equity volatility.” Yes, because the Fed’s constant manipulation of markets by lowering implied and realized vol is not enough.

 

And while it is easy to spin any long-term scenario as bullish laden with countless favorable assumptions, even JPMorgan finds it impossible to spin the near term impact as bullish: “There is little doubt, that similar to the past, tax optimization would result in one-off bout of asset selling ahead of the effective date of the capital gains tax rate hike so that investors realize their capital gains before the new higher rate applies. “

History is full of such examples: before at the end of 1986 and 2012 ahead of the 1 January 1987 and 2013 increase in the capital gain tax rate.

So assuming Biden becomes President and controls the Congress to be able to implement his plan to increase the capital gains tax rate next year, the most likely effective date JPM envisages is 1 January 2022. In this case, any tax related asset selling would take place in the fourth quarter of 2021, i.e., a year from now. Which brings us the key question: how much tax-related asset selling should we expect at the end of 2021 assuming an effective date of the new capital gains tax rate of 1st January 2022?

One way of answering this question is to look at the experiences of 1986 and 2012. Figure 4 shows the capital gains realizations in the US as % of US GDP. One can clearly see the big annual increase in US capital gains realizations during 1986 and 2012, by 3% and 1.5% respectively of US GDP. Applying an increase of 2% of US GDP in capital gains realizations in the current conjuncture would imply additional tax-related asset selling of around $400bn due to the prospective increase in the capital gains tax rate.

According to JPM, “such selling would likely put some pressure on the US equity market of around 5% or so as we saw previously at the end of 1986 and 2012 (Figure 5).” However at this point the short-term becomes long-term (similar to how traders become investors after bad trades), and as Panigirtzoglou next posits, “such pressure is likely to be temporary and once the new capital gains tax rate is introduced, the equity market would likely resume its uptrend in even stronger manner.”

Indeed, Figure 5 shows that following a negative to flattish profile in the fourth quarter of  1986 and 2012, the equity market saw a steeper upward trajectory in the first half of 1987 and 2013, i.e. the equity market corrections at the end of 1986 and 2012 proved good buying opportunities. In particular, in 1986 the S&P had seen annualized price returns of around 15% per year on average in the 5 years before the tax rise. In 2012, a 5-year horizon covers the financial crisis, but using a shorter horizon between 2 and 4 years saw annualized gains of 6-12%. And in the first quarter of the year the new higher rate had kicked in, the S&P saw returns of 20% and 10% respectively.

Going back to the less than bullish short-term, JPM next looks at which sectors would be most impacted from the Biden tax changes, and finds that in the event of a Democratic sweep that subsequently sees a change in CGT rates taking effect at end-2021, “the sectors that have outperformed in recent years recent years are susceptible to some volatility around the time when a new higher CGT rate would kick in. Looking at the annualized returns over the past 5 years (Figure 8), this implies sectors
such as tech, consumer discretionary and healthcare.” By contrast, investors might prefer to wait until after the new higher CGT rate kicks in before harvesting tax losses from sectors and companies that have seen weaker returns (e.g. energy) at a higher CGT rate.”

Putting it all together, JPM concludes that even if there is a Blue Sweep in November, “it is perhaps too early to worry about a prospective capital gains tax rate increase in the US” as the likely effective date of the higher capital gains tax rate would be  January 2022. As such, JPMorgan admits that “we are likely to see some downward pressure in equity markets in Q4 2021, i.e., in a year’s time.”

Of course, since such a conclusion in isolation would be viewed as too bearish for a bank whose job is to pump markets, JPM then engages the spin cycle, and writes that “once the new capital gains tax rate kicks in, the equity market is likely to resume its  upward trajectory in a strong manner as it did previously in the first quarter half of 1987 and 2013.” Because why not: after all the Fed is there to make sure stocks never again suffer the indignity of another bear market.

Finally, and somewhat laughably, JPM writes that “longer term we see little impact from a prospective capital gains tax rate  increase on risk taking and investors’ attitude towards equities as an asset class given the current low yield and high equity risk premium environment.”

To summarize: in its quest to spin a Biden administration as positive for risk assets, perhaps even more so than Trump’s, first we had a barrage of banks predicting that the jump in corporate tax rates under president Biden would be a non-event for markets (since it will be offset by trillions more in stimulus), and now we have the largest commercial US bank vouching that an even more draconian increase in capital gains tax may be negative around the end of 2021, but will then supercharge returns in the years after.

So yes, it’s possible that we now live in such an upside down world where Biden’s higher tax rates are bullish for markets… just as Trump’s tax cuts were bullish for markets (here, the question emerges, is there any event than in Wall Street’s view is ever negative for markets, or rather centrally-planned “markets” in which the Fed injects at least $120 billion every month), although we doubt it; after all these forecasts come from the same Wall Street which was dead certain that Trump defeating Clinton would lead to a market crash (we all know what happened then). In any case, now that JPM has done the initial spin cycle on why higher capital gains taxes are bullish for stocks, we expect all other banks to join in the coming days with their own narratives on why the only thing more bullish for stocks than lower taxes is higher taxes.

Finally, since this is all just spin, we leave the final word to another branch of JPMorgan, its Private Bank (which handles all of the bank’s high net worth clients), whose conclusion is that no matter what happens, one should not sell:

Since the end of World War II, there’s been this one constant, regardless of the occupant of the White House and the composition of Congress: equity markets have increased in value over time. Some stocks, sectors or styles do better at some times than others, depending on specific, often unpredictable factors—a fact that underlines the importance of diversification. That is why, to ensure the long-term health of one’s portfolio, we think that time in the market, rather than market timing, is key. Consequently, we advise clients to stay invested, regardless of specific events—including election results.

The punchline: despite the clear differences to the tax regime under a Biden administration, JPMorgan goes so far as to say ignore it all, and in fact, “don’t let the passions of this election lead you to make any key planning or investment decisions.”

In light of all this, one wonders: does it even matter who is president as long as we have a Fed?

Authored by Blair Nelson via Campus Reform,

University of Illinois professor Catherine Prendergast recently tweeted that Mitch McConnell was a Nazi and compared him to a character from Schindler’s list.

“McConnell is a Nazi,” said Prendergast.

“He’s that guy in Schindler’s List who picks off old Jewish ladies with his rifle, for sport.”

McConnell is a Nazi. He’s that guy in Schindler’s List who picks off old Jewish ladies with his rifle, for sport.

— Dr. Stop Shooting Black People (@cjp_still) September 19, 2020

Prendergast also tweeted that Mitch McConnell was the reason she believed in “Old Testament justice.”

McConnell is why I believe in Old Testament justice.

— Dr. Stop Shooting Black People (@cjp_still) September 19, 2020

I think we need to tie Mitt to the roof of the car and go for a drive to clear his head.

— Dr. Stop Shooting Black People (@cjp_still) September 24, 2020

Prendergast recently made headlines fire after stating that “MAGA equals Nazi” and advocating for elections “where whites don’t vote.” 

Similarly, as Campus Reform reported, a professor at the University of Virginia said in a Washington Post Op-Ed that President Trump’s rhetoric is “echoing” that of southern enslavers.

“In arguing that radical protesters endanger U.S. law and order, Trump is echoing the attacks leveled by Southern enslavers against abolitionist,” Elizabeth Varon wrote.

Campus Reform reached out to Prendergast, but did not receive a response.

Having reportedly “capitulated” from $500 million, the GOP’s latest $1.8 trillion COVID-Relief package offer has been flatly rejected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (whose latest offer was a $2.2 trillion package)… once again!

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi claims the White House offer falls short on COVID-19 testing, worker safety, and child care (all of which she bundles – obviously – under the need for state bailouts, our words, not hers).

Here is the full letter, providing her campaigning colleagues and the media with their talking points to un-blame the Democrats for delaying payments to suffering Americans for tomorrow’s political shows… (emphasis ours)

Dear Democratic Colleague,

On Friday, the Trump Administration returned to the table with a proposal that attempted to address some of the concerns Democrats have in the coronavirus relief negotiations. This proposal amounted to one step forward, two steps back. When the President talks about wanting a bigger relief package, his proposal appears to mean that he wants more money at his discretion to grant or withhold, rather than agreeing on language prescribing how we honor our workers, crush the virus and put money in the pockets of workers.

At this point, we still have disagreement on many priorities, and Democrats are awaiting language from the Administration on several provisions as the negotiations on the overall funding amount continue.

A key concern is the absence of any response on a strategic plan to crush the virus. We cannot safely reopen schools, the economy and our communities until we crush the virus with the science-based, national plan for testing, tracing, treatment and isolation, and for the equitable and ethical distribution of a safe and effective vaccine once developed. This strategic plan is contained in the Heroes Act.

Please see the Energy and Commerce memo which is attached.

From start to finish, the Trump Administration refuses to honor our heroes and respect the safety our workforce. The funding for state and local remains sadly inadequate. At the same time, the Trump proposal recklessly leaves behind workers by ignoring the need for strong OSHA protections to keep our workers safe as they risk their lives and jobs to keep us safe and keep the economy running. We are urging the Administration to support our strong OSHA language, which requires OSHA to issue an enforceable emergency temporary standard within seven days that covers all workers from COVID-19 infections. Unfortunately, they have a Liability Provision that is reckless in how it ignores safety in the workplace.

At this point, the Trump proposal is insufficient in meeting families’ needs, in stark contrast to the Heroes Act, which secured tens of  billions for direct relief and refundable credits. At the end of  September, in preparation for the restarting of our negotiations, I had  previously written to you about what the Heroes Act mean for  families at their kitchen tables. For a family of four earning $24,000:

• Direct Relief — Heroes Act: a total $9,890 when including the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Trump proposal eliminate Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and Child Dependent Care Tax Credit.

• Earned Income Tax Credit — Heroes Act: If the parents lost all of their income in 2020, they could receive up to $5,920 in EITC based on their earnings from 2019. Trump proposal: eliminate.

• Child Tax Credit and Child Dependent Care Tax Credit — Heroes Act: fully refundable $4,000 for the two children equaling an additional $1,200 in refund. Trump proposal: eliminate.

• Child Care — Heroes Act: $57 billion to enable parents to work while their children are in the uncertain circumstances of in-person, virtual or hybrid learning. Trump proposal: No movement from $25 billion figure, which is totally inadequate. At the same time. Republicans are insisting on a tax credit for the wealthiest people in America, which is retroactive and therefore not coronavirus related, at the expense of tax credit for the families of our poorest children who are directly affected by coronavirus. At a time when children and families are challenged by uncertainty in whether their schools will be actual, virtual or hybrid, the Trump Administration is underfunding education.

• Unemployment Insurance — Heroes Act: contains strong funding to protect the five million workers at risk of exhausting all of their regular Unemployment Insurance or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits before January 31. Trump proposal: $200 billion less than what Democrats proposed, which experts tell us is what is needed.

Our Heroes Act is a tribute to the tremendous leadership of Chairwoman Nita Lowey and our Committee Chairs. who once again brought their formidable expertise to assembling a bill that is science, data and evidence-based. Yet. Trump proposal: slash billions of dollars from appropriations.

Despite these unaddressed concerns, I remain hopeful that yesterday’s developments will move us closer to an agreement on a relief package that addresses the health and economic crisis facing America’s families.

As I have said before, the devil and the angels are in the details. With over 213,000 Americans tragically having died, over 7.7 million having been infected and millions having lost jobs and income security, it is long overdue for Republicans to get serious and work with us to defeat this crisis.

These and other issues are unresolved affect lives, livelihoods and the life of our American Democracy. We hope to make progress soon. Updates will continue to be ongoing.

Of course, having used the word “hope” to describe her outlook for a deal every day for the last month, we suspect the market will love this news – no deal means a bigger deal?

Or some such idiotic logic.

She doesn’t want a deal. She cares nothing for the people hurting. It is all an cynical effort to score political points. #sad https://t.co/Lv9NKuDI4h

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) October 10, 2020

As a reminder, Alec Phillips, a policy analyst at Goldman Sachs, wrote on Friday that the “renewed urgency” from the Trump administration did lead to an “actual narrowing in positions” but a deal was still unlikely. “For now we still think the odds are against substantial pre-election stimulus even if the situation is murkier than it seemed only a few days ago,” Mr Phillips said.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Birch Gold Group,

Ever since the crash of 2008, a trend has developed in U.S. election debate: the near complete avoidance of serious discussion about the economy. Ron Paul was the last candidate to attack the subject with any energy, and that was quite a while ago now. The economic decline of our nation is being aggressively ignored, even though it is the most important issue of the past century.

For example, talk about the actions of the Federal Reserve over the past decade has fallen off the radar. Both sides of the aisle love the Fed and both sides are happy to let the central bank print the dollar into oblivion. Both sides have mentioned little or nothing about the current stagflationary wave hitting the country, causing price inflation in many necessities, from food to electricity to rent (except for certain major cities where no one wants to live right now). And all serious examination of globalism and forced interdependency has ceased, even though global interdependency in manufacturing is one of the major causes of supply chain shortages and price inflation right now.

The real unemployment rate remains high, holding at 26.9% when accounting for U-6 measurements. While some jobs have been recovered from the initial COVID lockdown, most of these are part-time, low-wage retail and fast food jobs.

The question that might arise during the election is: Which side is more likely to keep the lockdowns going despite the economic disaster they are helping to cause? That award obviously goes to Biden, though the President continues to leave lockdown decisions to state governments, which means they will probably remain an issue regardless of the election outcome.

The small business sector has decimated by the “Retail Apocalypse”, which started in 2018 and has hit critical mass in 2020 during the lockdowns. Yelp data recently showed that 60% of small business closures due to the coronavirus are now permanent; that’s over 97,000 businesses gone in the blink of an eye. This showcases and proves that the small business bailouts were a complete failure. That’s what happens when you put global banks like J.P. Morgan in charge of which businesses get bailout dollars and which businesses don’t.

Add this to the 25,000 major retail stores set to close so far in 2020 and one can see that this is a very real crisis that could have repercussions for decades to come, but almost no one is talking about it.

Debate about the trade war with China has also taken a back seat to the pandemic, though the trade war continues and many tariffs remain in place.

Both Trump and Biden have indicated that there will be no change to the trade war posture of the U.S. post-election, and so tensions with China will only increase. While China is one of the worst human rights violators on the planet and, in my opinion, their communist government should be erased from existence, there is a little issue of debt and monetary investment that, again, no one is talking about.

China not only has the ability to dump trillions in U.S. Treasuries back on the market, but it also has the option of dumping the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. As the number one exporter/importer in the world, China could cause significant damage to the U.S. economy if they drop the dollar and their trade partners follow their lead. I believe this threat will become clearer in 2021, AFTER the election is over.

The problem of U.S. dependency on Chinese manufacturing has been mentioned during the campaign, but merely in passing. No serious plan to bring production back to the U.S. has been presented by either side, and this seems to be the predictable narrative of every election for the past 12 years: Use buzzwords on the economy to pretend as if candidates care while never offering a practical plan for solving the underlying problems.

Tax cuts or tax increases are irrelevant and do nothing beyond causing minor short-term shifts in cash flows. The very root of the U.S. financial system (and the global financial system) is rotten, and NOTHING is being done about it by either political party.

There needs to be a reckoning, and certain figures within the finance and banking structure need to answer for their criminality. International banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan contributed directly to the creation of the mortgage and credit crisis of 2008, and they did so with full knowledge that the derivatives bubble was about to collapse. Yet, to this day, they continue to operate with impunity around the world and offer “advice” to investors and governments on economic management. In 2020 they continue to enjoy bailout dollars from the Fed, and when they are exposed for fraud, they simply get a slap on the wrist and a fine.

The outcome of all this is rather predictable: Small businesses are going to disappear and what’s left of the localized economy in the U.S. is going to be destroyed. International corporations, the only businesses enjoying reliable protection from the Fed, will remain as the only game left in town. It is almost as if the economy is being forcefully streamlined into a global centralized model with the major corporations at the helm…

For those people who put a lot of stock in elections, I think it’s important for them to remember that very little of actual importance changes in the course of political events. Problems are not solved by politicians or presidents; problems are always solved by the people, if they get solved at all.

This means that the ongoing downtrend in the U.S. economy is assured even after the 2020 election, and no matter who ends up in the White House, the crash will likely accelerate because the causes of the crash are never dealt with. Fundamentally, local production and trade is the key to saving America. This is how America’s economy was able to survive and thrive at the formation of our system, and it only makes sense to return to a free market model that was proven to work.

If major manufacturing is ever going to return to the U.S., companies need to be incentivized. Why are corporations enjoying lavish tax cuts without having to give anything in return? Shouldn’t tax cuts come with strings attached, such as a requirement that they bring home a large portion of their factory base to U.S. soil?

Decentralization means more than just moving away from globalism; it also means that each and every community has to pursue self-reliance and establish its own production model. Instead of trading our wealth and work to international companies that siphon dollars away from our communities, we need to develop our own local trade and keep at least a fair portion of those dollars circulating in our own towns and neighborhoods. We also need to start focusing on necessities and being able to provide for ourselves in the event that the international supply chain breaks even further.

The elections do not, and probably will not, address any of the issues I describe above because they are a circus that distracts away from legitimate dangers. Elections are meant to control the narrative, not give the public a voice. By all means, vote for whoever you like, just keep in mind that our duty as Americans does not stop at the voting booth; it is our job to fix this country and to save ourselves. The politicians are irrelevant.

*  *  *

After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

Following last night’s interview on Tucker Carlson, President Trump will hold his first “live event” since being diagnosed with the coronavirus Saturday afternoon. Starting at 1400ET, Trump will speak from the South Lawn balcony about “law and order” in an event that has been cheekily dubbed a “peaceful protest”, which CBS News says is expected to draw hundreds of people.

The address notably comes just two weeks after the president nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. Hearings to move her nomination forward are set to begin next week.

Notably, the White House is coordinating with Candace Owens’s “Blexit” group, and black conservative activists are expected to attend.

2,000 invitations have reportedly been issued, and attendees will be required to bring (and wear) masks, all attendees must also complete COVID-19 screenings.

On Friday, Dr. Fauci was widely quoted for describing Trump’s Sept. 26 ceremony unveiling the nomination of Judge Barrett as a “super spreader event”. And many have claimed that the White House is tempting fate by holdng another one.

Last week, the FBI says it foiled a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), after the FBI infiltrated an anti-government militia and arrested 13 members who “talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor.”

And while the FBI never suggested a race-based ideology in its criminal complaint, the MSM – as well as Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), took the ‘white supremacist’ ball and ran with it – hard.

On Friday, however, the Washington Post profiled several members of the group. Notably absent were accusations of ‘white supremacy’ – perhaps after acknowledging:

“One of alleged plotters, 23-year-old Daniel Harris, attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was upset about the killing of George Floyd and police violence.”

Another alleged plotter, Brandon Caserta, called President Trump a ‘tyrant’ – adding ‘Trump is not your friend, dude.‘ Caserta notably has an anarchist flag behind him in several videos he’s recorded.

Wow! This is big. Brandon Caserta, one of the ringleaders of the group of men arrested for a plot where the group planned to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, hated President Trump too!

“Trump is not your friend dude”

He says Trump is “a tyrant” & calls President Trump an “enemy”. pic.twitter.com/T5paEeTkiJ

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 8, 2020

“They are oppressing you for a paycheck. If you’re still supporting law enforcement, you are supporting the people who are enforcing slavery on everyone else.”

This is Brandon Caserta, a man who was arrested for a plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer. He’s a police hating anarchist. pic.twitter.com/3qGZpPpOJw

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 8, 2020

What’s more, there isn’t a shred of evidence included in the FBI’s criminal complaint, nor subsequent reporting, that the men adhered to a white supremacist ideology.

And so, it appears that the FBI busted an anarchist, anti-government militia which plotted violence against elected officials – yet hated both sides of the aisle.

Let’s see how fast this entire affair disappears from the news cycle.