Month: October 2024

Authored by Anne Johnson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A mortgage goes on after your death. The lender will still require payment, or they’ll foreclose. Whether you’ve willed your home to a relative or you died “intestate,” someone needs to pay.

But how does that work? Can anyone pay the mortgage, or does it need to be refinanced? Establishing your wishes ahead of time will help with a smooth transition and protect your heirs. They’ll be able to keep your home and avoid foreclosure.

Who’s Responsible for a Mortgage After Death?

When you pass, your debts are paid from your estate, and your executor uses your assets to pay any creditors.

But what about the mortgage? If there is a co-signer on the loan, they will be responsible for paying the mortgage. If you have mortgage-protection insurance, the remaining debt will be paid by the insurance policy. The payments will go directly to the mortgage lender.

But if you don’t have mortgage-protection insurance and the loan only has your name on it, no one is responsible for paying it. The financial institution will foreclose on the house for nonpayment.

It should be noted that a co-signer of a mortgage loan is solely responsible for the mortgage regardless of whether they have rights to ownership of the property.

Inheriting a Home With a Mortgage

Usually, when a mortgaged property transfers ownership, an alienation clause or due-on-sale clause is activated. This means that the balance of the loan must be paid immediately.

There are laws that allow heirs to inherit the home’s title without triggering the due-on-sale clause. This means if you will a home to a relative, they can assume your mortgage and continue making monthly payments.

It’s important for the heir to keep the mortgage current even if they haven’t legally assumed the property’s title. That way there’s no worry of foreclosure.

Once you have legally taken ownership of the house, you can continue paying the current loan or refinance. You don’t have to have a credit check to take over the loan, but you will need one if you choose to refinance.

What Happens If There’s a Reverse Mortgage?

You may have inherited the house, but if it has a reverse mortgage, there are fewer possibilities than if it has a standard mortgage.

The surviving heirs or heir must pay off the entire loan balance or turn the deed over to the lender.

Who Pays Mortgage When Divided Among Multiple Heirs?

Multiple people could inherit a house. If they agree to assume the mortgage, they become co-borrowers and will continue to make payments.

Three out of four parents intend to leave their homes to their children. But almost 70 percent of those heirs say they will sell the houses. If the heirs agree to sell, they can use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage.

But if there are multiple heirs and one doesn’t want to sell, they can buy out the others. If the heirs cannot agree, the courts may require a sale of the property to pay off the lender.

What Happens If You Die Without a Will?

If you die without a will or trust, the courts will appoint an executor to distribute the assets. Unless there is a transfer on the deed, then the mortgage is entered into the unsettled estate.

The executor could use outstanding assets to make mortgage payments until an heir is settled or the house is sold.

How Does Your Heir Notify the Mortgage Company?

There is usually a formal process for notifying a mortgage lender, but generally, the heir must notify the lender in writing.

The letter should include:

• deceased person’s name
• address
• date of death
• account number

The lender will require a death certificate to confirm the borrower’s death.

If there is a will and named executor, the lender will require documents affirming the designation. Without a will, they will require an administrator appointed by the court to deliver the necessary documents.

The lender will require the contact details of the person handling the deceased estate.

How to Assume the Mortgage of an Inherited House

First, the lender needs to know that the borrower has died. They also need to know who has legally inherited the house. The lender will require documentation from all the heirs.

If the heir is not the co-signer, they will need to work with the lender to initiate a transfer of ownership. The heir will need to show a death certificate and proof of inheritance. This is a simple process.

The heir should make payments where the owner left off to deter foreclosure.

If the heirs are listed on the bank accounts, they can use those funds to pay the mortgage (you’ll need to provide the bank or credit union with a death certificate).

An heir who wishes to live in the home but cannot afford the payments has the option to refinance the mortgage.

Your Heirs Pay the Mortgage

The bottom line is if your heirs want to keep the house, they can. But they will need to pay the existing mortgage or refinance it in their name.

When there are multiple heirs, it might be a little more complicated if they’re not all on the same page. Then, the house may need to be sold to compensate each heir.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2024. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Authored by Peter St Onge via The Brownstone Institute,

Authoritarianism is back across the West – from Europe to the Biden-Harris censorship regime that would fit perfectly in Communist China. 

I think many of us were surprised during Covid to realize just what the supposedly liberal West has become: Essentially the Soviet Union but with better uniforms — well, better video games, anyway.

Of course, it was decades in the making — Covid just showed their cards.

The question, as always, is What’s Next.

For better or worse, authoritarianism has happened many times in history — it’s kind of the human default. The original state.

Humanity has a lot of experience with authoritarianism.

So how did people protect themselves last time?

Dodging Tyranny in the 1940s

An elegant illustration is the 1940s, where essentially the entire globe went authoritarian socialist and then — as always — went to war. 

And the correct response very much depended on where you were.

If you were in New York, you adjusted your stock portfolio. 

FDR’s 52nd birthday party, dressed as Caesar. The fasces bottom right is unintentionally apt.

If you were in Britain you moved to the countryside and stockpiled canned food.

If you were in Switzerland you packed a go-bag in case the German army decided to fill in the map. 

And if you were in Germany, of course, the only plan was to get the heck out.

The problem is when to pull each trigger: When do you adjust the portfolio? Buy the canned food? Pack the go-bag? When do you get the heck out?

Each of these preparations has a cost. And the more successful you are — the more you’ve built or achieved — the higher those costs go. Moving your family, your business, converting your career to location-independent where you can support your family. 

People ask why people didn’t leave Berlin before it was too late, and those costs are why.

The good news is that this means the vast majority of us will stay and fight. 

I mean, true patriots will always stay and fight. But those mounting costs mean even apolitical people will fight. 

French Resistance taking a Sunday stroll.

They will fight in proportion to the risk — because the cost rises with it. And they will fight in proportion to what they’ve built. 

That is, the people with the most to lose – the natural elite – are the most likely to stay.

Every election since George W we’ve been treated to Hollywood liberals threatening to leave the country. You don’t hear influential people on the other side saying that. 

We will stay.

The Bleaker It Gets, the Better Our Odds

And stay we should. Because I know I’ve made this point repeatedly in videos, but we are going to win. 

Why? Partly tactical. They launched their takeover too soon. Because Covid fell into their lap, and they were still a generation away from the brainwashing it would take for a totalitarian takeover.

Instead, the people rejected it. The Covid state left dangerous remnants, to be sure, that will become malignant if not excised.

Still, it’s striking — perhaps unprecedented — the degree to which a totalitarian regime, once installed, was almost entirely removed. And the reason is encouraging: Because it polled atrociously — you may remember the Dems turning as one just after Biden assumed office. 

In other words, even with our shabby election infrastructure, they still fear the people.

What remains post-Covid is an institutionalized left that has lost credibility with the majority. That is overextended, that has completely lost touch with the people.

This loss of legitimacy means they are far weaker than pre-Covid. 

And Democracy is coming for them.

Liberty’s Moment

We’re already seeing the backlash with Trump surging in the polls, with Canada on deck next year, and European countries electing populists.

Even more encouraging, if you zoom out rarely in history has liberty had so many advantages. Thanks to the internet — with a big assist from Elon. 

Of course, liberty starts out with the advantage that man is not by nature a slave. Slavery is an unstable equilibrium. It’s fragile. Just waiting for the right push. 

But this is up against the natural advantage of authoritarianism — it has the money. And money buys guns.

It has the money because it seizes half of what you earn and uses it against you, then prints up whatever else it needs at the central bank. Then it uses that money to control the levers of society, from education to media to finance.

We have the numbers, they have the money.

Trust in Government Collapsing in Both Parties.

What’s Next

If it comes down to numbers vs money, our numbers are growing fast. Moreover, gloriously, the more they push the more we grow.

Meaning they only have 2 options: pull back and hold on for dear life against the backlash. Or keep pushing and they’re out of power. It’s only a matter of time.

In the 1970’s the great economist Murray Rothbard noted that you could fit the entire liberty movement in a New York living room.

Now there are literally a billion of us. 

Forget a living room, we couldn’t fit in a state.

Meanwhile their advantage – money – is collapsing before our eyes. Crashing in crippling debt, nervous financial markets, the limits of inflationary printing, and the moribund stagflation that always accompanies it.

In short, we’re getting stronger. They’re getting weaker. And the longer it takes, the more spectacular will be our victory.

A version of this appeared at the author’s Substack 

Authored by Jennifer Sweenie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Short for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, NAD+ supplements are being studied for their effects on cellular energy production, mitochondria function, and DNA repair. Before reaching for a supplement, though, it’s important to explore the role of NAD+ in the body and the existing evidence on its ties to longevity, as well as ways to boost NAD+ levels naturally.

As researchers work to uncover the mechanisms behind aging, NAD+ has emerged as a promising therapeutic.

What Is NAD+?

NAD+ is a coenzyme, a small molecule that acts as a catalyst for enzymes to perform their functions. NAD+ is found in all cells in the body and has a critical role in transferring energy within our cells.

NAD+ is involved in various metabolic processes, including converting the food we eat into the energy our cells need to stay alive. It helps generate adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a final product our bodies can use. ATP is the end fuel source all our cells use. Without NAD, you cannot make ATP—an essential part of life.

NAD vs. NAD+

NAD+ is the functional form of NAD in the body. Although these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they are not the same molecule.

“NAD+ is the one we are primarily focused on when it comes to longevity, cellular health, and energy,” Dr. Orel Swenson, founder of Aeonic Health, a regenerative and longevity medicine practice based in Boston, told The Epoch Times in an email.

As observed in mouse models, NAD+ levels naturally drop as we age. By the time we reach middle age, our NAD+ levels are at half of what they were in our youth.

“NAD+ levels decline naturally with age partly because the accumulation of DNA damage and loss of mitochondrial efficiency demand more and more NAD+,” said Swenson.

NAD Supplementation

A few existing methods to restore NAD+ levels include oral supplements, nasal sprays, transdermal patches, self-injections, and fusion therapy. The main differences lie in the delivery. Some methods are considered faster and more effective than others.

NAD+ itself isn’t really a supplement that can be effectively taken by mouth. The bioavailability is quite limited this way,” said Swenson.

For this reason, other methods of administering NAD+, such as via IV infusion or subcutaneous injections, are growing in popularity.

“Unsurprisingly, when taking an oral supplement, the increase in your NAD+ levels is more gradual. Infusions and injections are much quicker but are more expensive and require clinician oversight for safety,” he said.

“When given this way, it’s imperative to work with a healthcare professional familiar with NAD+ administration, as it can cause nausea, headaches, fatigue, and even low blood pressure if given incorrectly,” he continued.

NAD+ Precursors

Precursors are molecules that are converted into another substance or compound by a chemical reaction. NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) and NR (nicotinamide riboside) are substances the body can use to produce NAD+. While NAD+ is more challenging for the body to absorb, these precursors are more easily converted into NAD+.

“NMN needs fewer steps (i.e., it is closer to becoming NAD+) than NR, but both are available as oral supplements with good bioavailability,” explained Swenson.

A study published in GeroScience in 2023 determined that NMN supplementation increases blood concentrations of NAD+ and is safe and well tolerated in oral doses of up to 900 mg per day.

NR, a new form of vitamin B3, is also recognized as safe and effective in raising NAD+ levels at a cellular level. NR oral supplements are often found at a lower price point than NMN varieties.

Swenson explained the role of NAD+ in terms of longevity in four points. As a coenzyme, it interacts with other enzymes in the body to facilitate:

1. ATP production: NAD+ acts as a coenzyme, interacting with other enzymes in the body to produce ATP, the final energy source for cells.
2. Mitochondrial health: Mitochondria can be likened to a refinery or power station where ATP production takes place. NAD+ is essential for maintaining optimal mitochondrial function and for mitochondrial biogenesis, which involves the creation of new mitochondria.
3. DNA repair: Sirtuins are signaling proteins that have a critical role in the aging process, including energy metabolism, inflammation, and extending lifespan. By interacting with sirtuins, NAD+ mediates the repair of damaged DNA, which accumulates as people age.
4. Reduction of inflammation: NAD+ plays a role in reducing inflammation. As we age and levels decline, we may experience an accumulation of inflammation, known as “inflammaging.”

A review published in The International Journal of Molecular Science concluded that the existing research on the benefits of NAD+ on aging and healthspan is currently based on cell cultures and model organisms, and research on humans is warranted. Further research is also needed on long-term effects and dosage.

Swenson concluded, “It [NAD+] does not represent a magic bullet, but rather should be viewed as part of an overall strategy for maximizing healthy aging.”

Gauging NAD+ Levels

There may be too much of a good thing, as high NAD+ levels have been linked to cancer and impact immunity. Existing evidence on the exact mechanisms of the connection is limited. However, NAD+ levels seem to have both pro- and anti-cancer effects. It may serve as a protective factor early on in cancer development but as a promoting factor later in the progression of the disease.

A study published in Nutrients found that “Replenishing NAD pools by NR could inhibit tumor growth and cancer metastasis as well as promote the overall health status of tumor-bearing mice.”

Specifically, the authors suggested that boosting NAD by NR supplementation could be a novel strategy to prevent the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

One week before the absolutely crucial BRICS summit in Kazan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) held a summit in Islamabad.

This convergence is important in more ways than one.

The summit in Pakistan involved the Council of the Heads of Government of SCO member-states. Out of it came a joint communique stressing the need to implement decisions taken at the SCO annual summit last July in Astana: that’s where the heads of state actually gathered, including new SCO full member Iran.

China, following the rotating SCO chairmanship of close ally Pakistan – now under a dodgy administration fully endorsed by the military goons who keep ultra-popular former Prime Minister Imran Khan in jail – has officially taken over the SCO presidency for 2024 to 2025. And the name of game, predictably, is business.

The motto of the Chinese presidency is – what else – “action”. So Beijing took no time to start promoting further, faster synergy between the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), whose predominant power is Russia.

Cue to the Russia-China strategic partnership fast advancing trans-Eurasia economic corridors. And that brings us to a couple of key connectivity subplots featured prominently at the Islamabad summit.

Riding the steppe

Let’s start with the fascinating Steppe Road – which is a Mongolian idea crystalizing as an upgraded economic corridor. Mongolia is an observer at the SCO, not a full member: reasons for it are quite complex. Still, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin raved about the Steppe Road with his SCO interlocutors.

The Mongolians came up with the idea of a Taliin Zam (“Steppe Road” in Mongolian) back in 2014, containing no less than “Five Great Passages”: a maze of transport and energy infrastructure to be built with investments totaling at least $50 billion.

These include a 997 km-long transnational expressway linking Russia-China; 1,100 km of electrified railway infrastructure; the expansion of the – already running – Trans-Mongolian Railway from Sukhbaatar in the north to Zamyn-Uud in the south; and Pipelineistan of course, as in new oil and gas pipelines linking Altanbulag in the north to Zamyn-Uud.

Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai was as enthusiastic as Mishustin, announcing that Mongolia has already finalized 33 Steppe Road projects.

These projects happen to neatly align with Russia’s own Trans-Eurasian Corridor – a connectivity maze which includes the Trans-Siberian Railway, the Trans-Manchurian Railway, the Trans-Mongolian Railway and the Baikal Amur Mainline (BAM).

Back in July at the SCO summit, Putin and Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh spent quite some time discussing the finer strategic points of Eurasian logistics.

Then Putin visited Mongolia in early September for the 85th anniversary of the joint Soviet-Mongolian victory over the Japanese at the Khalkhin Gol River. Putin was received as a rock star.

All that makes perfect strategic sense. The Russia-Mongolia border is 3,485 km-long. The USSR and the Mongolian People’s Republic established diplomatic relations over a century ago, in 1921. They have been working together on key projects such as the Trans-Mongolian gas pipeline – yet another Russia-China connection; modernization of the Ulaanbaatar Railway joint venture; Russia supplying fuel to the new Chinggis Khaan International Airport; and Rosatom building a nuclear power plant.

Mongolia harbors the proverbial wealth of natural resources, from rare earth minerals (reserves may reach an astonishing 31 million tons) to uranium (prospective reserves of 1.3 million tons). Even as it applies what is called the Third Neighbor approach, Mongolia needs to maintain a careful balancing act, as it is on the radar non-stop of the US and the EU, with the collective West pressing  for less Eurasia cooperation with Russia-China.

Naturally Russia holds a major strategic advantage over the West, as Moscow not only treats Mongolia as an equal partner but can provide its neighbor’s needs when it comes to energy security.

What makes it all even more enticing is that Beijing envisions the Steppe Road as “highly consistent” with BRI, complete with the proverbial enthusiasm hailing the synergy and “win-win cooperation” between both projects.

This is not a military alliance

Complementing the Steppe Road drive, Chinese Premier Li Qiang went to Pakistan not only for the SCO summit but with a connectivity priority: advancing the next stage of the $65 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), arguably BRI’s flagship project.

Li and his Pakistani counterpart Sharif finally inaugurated the strategically crucial, Chinese-financed Gwadar International Airport in southwest Balochistan – against all odds plus intermittent raids by CIA-funded separatist Baloch guerrillas.

CPEC is an extremely ambitious multi-level infrastructure development project encompassing several nodes starting from the China-Pakistan border in the Khunjerab pass, down through the – upgraded – Karakoram highway and descending south across Balochistan all the way to the Arabian Sea.

In the future CPEC may even include a gas pipeline from Gwadar going up north all the way to Xinjiang – further easing China’s reliance on energy transported across the Strait of Malacca, which could be blocked by the Hegemon in no time.

The pre-BRICS SCO summit in Pakistan once again reiterated the synergy of several aspects concerning both multilateral bodies. SCO member states – from the Central Asians to India and Pakistan – overwhelmingly understand Russian reasoning when it comes to the inevitability of the Special Military Operation (SMO).

The Chinese position, officially, is a marvel of equilibrium and suave ambiguity; even as Beijing stresses the support for the principle of national sovereignty, it has not condemned Russia; and at the same time it has never directly blamed NATO for the de facto war.

Geoeconomic connectivity is very much the priority for top SCO powers and strategic partners Russia-China. Since the early 2000s the SCO has evolved from counter-terrorism to  geoeconomic cooperation. Once again in Islamabad it was clear that the SCO will not turn into a military alliance in an anti-NATO mold.

What matters most now for all members, apart from geoeconomic cooperation, is to combat the West’s war of terror – bound to go on overdrive with the imminent, humiliating failure of Project Ukraine.

A mechanism that could further solidify the SCO and pave the way for a merger with BRICS further on down the – rocky – road is the Chinese concept of Global Security Initiative, which happens to dovetail with the Russian concept presented to – and rejected by – the US in December 2021, only two months before the inevitability of the SMO.

China proposes to “uphold the principle of indivisible security” as well as “build a balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture” and firmly oppose “the building of national security on the basis of insecurity of other countries”. That’s something that every member of the SCO – not to mention BRICS – subscribes to.

In a nutshell, indivisibility of security as envisaged by Russia-China amounts to the de facto application of the UN Charter. The result would be peace on a global level – and by implication the death knell to NATO.

While indivisibility of security still can’t be adopted Eurasia-wide – as the Hegemon deploys a war of terror in several fronts to undermine the emergence of a multi-nodal world – win-win cross-border connectivity keeps on rolling, from the Steppe Road to New Silk Road corridors.

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

… prompted us to respond.

That’s completely incorrect: according to Goldman Sachs, the Trump Victory index just hit an all time high while the Kamala index is back to Joe Biden Levels. Meanwhile, JPMorgan said that hedge funds are piling into Republican winner trades while dumping Democrat winners. https://t.co/wZBPOHbMBG pic.twitter.com/mq3uCxWjEI

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 18, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

GS Trading Views:

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

Much more in the Goldman note available to pro subscribers.

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Authored by Tony Lentini via RealClearDefense,

Military.com recently carried a story on a West Point cadet facing charges for sexual harassment and sexual assault. The article named names, not just of this one cadet, but also of another cadet charged with sexual misconduct, an officer faculty member facing conduct-related charges and the garrison commander who was acquitted of impaired driving charges.

Yet, after then-Superintendent Robert S. Caslen promised an investigation into why West Point permitted insubordinate communist cadet Spenser Rapone to graduate in 2016, the Army refused to release its findings on the spurious grounds of protecting Rapone’s privacy. This, despite the cadet’s public flouting of his Marxist political sympathies. Moreover, the promised but undelivered investigation was to be not of Rapone himself but of Caslen’s leadership or lack thereof in allowing an avowed communist to graduate. (Caslen subsequently resigned from his post-West-Point civilian job as president of the University of South Carolina for allegedly plagiarizing parts of a speech.)

In another case, the fate of several cadets who overdosed on cocaine laced with fentanyl on Spring Break two years ago has never been publicly released, again on privacy grounds.  I have an outstanding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to determine their final disposition that has been pending for over a year now, despite federal law requiring a response within 20 working days.  West Point’s public affairs officer cited privacy laws as the reason for the Academy’s stonewalling, even though I specifically did not ask for their names, only their punishment.  But their names should be released, as well as their fate, since drug abuse is a serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the cadets’ actions publicly discredited the United States Military Academy.

Something rotten is going on at West Point and within our military.  Why are some names released while others are not?  Why are sexual misconduct allegations and related court filings publicly disseminated while cadet drug abuse and West Point administrative failures are covered up?

My own FOIA request is now languishing in the “Initial Denial Authority” office of the Secretary of the Army at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.  Repeated calls and emails to expedite the release of information as to the cocaine-fentanyl cadets’ final disposition have gone unanswered.  A classmate’s five-month-old FOIA request to obtain West Point documents related to the Superintendent’s stated intention to make the Cadet Honor Code “more aspirational” was summarily dismissed by that same office for clearly bogus reasons:  1) That the Academy’s FOIA office had supplied the requested materials (they had not, providing only non-germane items); and 2) That a document search had uncovered no such documents.  By “completely bogus,” I mean that they lied.

West Point is a federally funded institution.  The Academy, and the military in general, are subject to federal laws, just as the rest of us are.  In fact, even more so, because the U.S. military traditionally and by law is subject to civilian control.  So, why are they permitted to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to willfully ignore?  Why are they permitted to ignore legitimate taxpayer requests for information?  Why the disparity between releasing names in sexual assault cases but not in drug cases and administrative failures?

What is West Point covering up and why?  When and how will these lawbreaking officials be held to account?  And when is this once proud and honorable institution finally going to come clean?

Tony Lentini is a 1971 West Point graduate and a founding board member of the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates.  He served five years in the Army, attaining the rank of captain, and then spent his civilian career in the energy industry, ultimately serving as vice president of public and international affairs for two independent oil and gas exploration and production companies.

Jordan Neely’s death in a crowded Manhattan subway car made worldwide headlines in May 2023, after bystander footage showed former Marine Daniel Penny restraining the erratic homeless man in a fatal chokehold. The case is finally set to go to trial, with jury selection beginning Monday.

Penny, who has argued that he acted to protect fellow passengers from a menacing Neely, faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Neely, a homeless Michael Jackson impersonator with a history of mental illness, died after Penny placed him in a chokehold for several minutes. According to prosecutors – who don’t have to prove intent to kill, Penny acted recklessly in causing Neely’s death.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has argued that Penny knew during the encounter that he might kill Neely, even if that was not his intention.

They’ve cited testimony from a Marine trainer, who told the grand jury that Marines are taught that chokeholds — which are meant to be a “non-lethal” restraint — can sometimes be fatal.

Prosecutors will also bring up evidence that Penny kept Neely in his chokehold for six minutes, continuing to restrain him even after the homeless man was no longer making purposeful movements.

“The notion that death is not a foreseeable consequence of squeezing someone’s neck for six minutes is beyond the pale,” the DA’s office wrote in a November 2023 court filing. –NY Post

Penny, a former infantry squad leader, has maintained that he did not intend to kill Neely, however Bragg’s office only has to convince a jury that Penny “recklessly” caused the death or disregarded a “substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” when he kept Neely in a chokehold for several minutes.

Julie Rendelman, a former prosecutor, suggested that the prosecution will likely play video footage of the incident in slow motion to underscore Penny’s extended use of force. “I think they really need to break down the scene, literally, second-by-second,” she explained.

According to Rendelman, prosecutors will make a huge mistake if they try to argue that Neely was “no danger to anyone” before Penny stepped in.

“You may lose some of those jurors who have been on the train many times, threatened by different individuals on many occasions,” she told the Post. “They really have to approach it in a way that recognizes that, but also recognizes that he went too far.”

The Defense’s Strategy

Penny’s defense lawyers, Thomas Kenniff and Steven Raiser, are expected to argue that their client’s actions were justified, pointing to what they describe as Neely’s erratic and threatening behavior. Witnesses recalled Neely shouting that “someone is going to die today” and declaring that he was “ready to go to Rikers.”

The defense is likely to question the medical examiner’s ruling that Penny’s chokehold directly caused Neely’s death. In an October 2023 motion, the attorneys argued that the examiner never provided specific evidence that Neely died from asphyxiation. Penny’s team may also attempt to introduce evidence of Neely’s drug use, pointing to toxicology reports that indicated Neely had the synthetic drug K2 in his system. While Penny’s lawyers acknowledge that the reports do not specify the quantity, they suggest that the drug could have been a contributing factor.

Who Will Testify?

According to the report, there will be several witnesses who were on the train, police officers who responded to the scene, and detectives who interviewed Penny. The city medical examiner’s office will likely present its findings, and the prosecution may call psychological experts to shed light on Penny’s mindset during the encounter.

A looming question is whether Penny himself will take the stand. Legal observers are divided on the wisdom of this move, but Rendelman said, “I think he probably needs to testify,” adding “This is one of the cases where it is likely that the jury is going to want to hear from Penny, because part of that justification is going to be about what he perceived at the time that the events were happening.”

The Stakes and Challenges

If convicted of second-degree manslaughter, Penny could face up to 15 years in prison. A conviction on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide carries a maximum sentence of four years. The final decision on sentencing would rest with Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley.

Jury selection is expected to be a critical phase, as prospective jurors’ own experiences on the subway could shape their views. “Jury selection is always a big part of any case, but for this one in particular, multiply that by 10,” said Brooklyn prosecutor Jason Goldman.

And according to Rendelman, “at the end of the day, one of their arguments is going to be even if you assume that initially – Daniel Penny’s argument that self defense is true, there was a point in time where there was no longer self-defense protection.”

Authored by Rhesa Browning via The Mises Institute,

Enough Already by Scott Horton is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the truth about US foreign policy in the Middle East for the last 35 years. Horton starts his exposé with the 9/11 tragedy, and then details all the terror wars up until today. Among all the facts and figures, Horton teaches ten important lessons.

Each chapter focuses on a specific country, but these lessons are woven throughout each.

Lesson 1—The US is Not Loyal to Its Allies

“If you want to know who America’s next enemy is, look at who we are funding right now.”—Dave Smith

I used to think this statement was an oversimplification, but it is deadly accurate. Our government routinely makes allies only to turn around and attack them years later. One clear example is what would become al Qaeda. In the 1980s, the US armed Afghan resistance fighters to oppose Russia in Afghanistan. After 9/11, al Qaeda became the archenemy of the US. Then, about ten years later, they started arming them again to fight in Iraq and in Syria.

In Afghanistan, the US supported the Taliban during the Clinton administration. Then multiple presidents fought a 20-year war against them only to give full control of Afghanistan back to the Taliban in 2021.

The US followed the same pattern with Iraq. The US armed them against Iran during the 1980s. They supported Hussein all the way to Iraq War I in 1990. Then they bombed and sanctioned the country until they captured him in 2003 and had him executed.

Lesson 2—The US Prolongs Wars

Without US involvement in the Middle East, both sides in a conflict would be similar in strength and have less resources to continue. In the Yemen War, the US sends arms to Saudi Arabia, who then sends them to their allies in Yemen to fight the Houthis, even though the Houthis “won” years ago. Take the US out of the equation and the Saudi’s allies wouldn’t be able to continue the war.

The same thing happened in Somalia when the US armed Ethiopian forces to invade. Continued US support incentivized the Ethiopian groups to continue fighting after it started. Outside the Middle East, this lesson played out the exact same way in the Ukraine-Russia war. Plus, the US stopped peace negotiations between Zelensky and Putin through their proxy Boris Johnson.

Lesson 3—The US Justifies Starting Wars with Nonsense

The best example is Iraq War II. One of the main intellectual justifications for attacking Iraq in 2003 was a white paper titled “A Clean Break,” written by David Wurmser. In it he dreams that if the US military would overthrow Iraq’s Baathist Party, they could set up a government and form close allies in the region. He then imagined that Syria and Lebanon would prefer to follow a US puppet regime in Iraq over Iran, and that the new Shia Iraqi government would unite more closely with the US than Iran. However, they were never going to prefer a secular Western government over fellow Muslims. Contrary to Wurmser’s mythology, Iraq immediately allied with Iran and the rest of the Shia world instead of the US.

We also all know about the false accusations the Bush Administration made to garner support for Iraq War II. They fabricated stories about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons, and about Hussein collaborating with al Qaeda.

Lesson 4—The US Causes the Problems They Claim to Prevent

The clearest example of this is Libya in 2011. The US government justified their intervention saying that, without it, Muammar Gadhafi would massacre his own civilians in response to al Qaeda-aligned rebels opposing his rule. However, US involvement in the conflict caused civilian massacres instead of preventing them. The US-backed rebels terrorized civilians wherever they gained control and instituted a new slave system.

Lesson 5—The US-Led Terror Wars Don’t Defend America

After 9/11, the Taliban offered to help the US capture Osama Bin Laden. Instead of working with the Taliban to avenge the lives of dead Americans, they attacked Afghanistan to conquer the country and install a Western-style government. It demonstrated the purpose was to build an empire, not to defend America.

The US waged many of the subsequent wars to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US fought Iraq War III and the Syrian War to reduce Iran’s influence in the region for this purpose. Another reason the US started Iraq War II was to open land for a new pipeline from Iraq to Israel. 

In the Yemen War, the Houthis were enemies of Saudi Arabia, not the US. The US still dutifully sent in weapons.

Lesson 6—The US Lies about Every Aspect of These Wars

They lie about why we should stay, they lie about status updates, they lie about the groups they support. In one of Scott Horton’s radio commercials, he states, “they lied us into war, all of them.” It applies to every aspect of these wars.

In 2012, the US government showed they were willing to lie in the most insane ways. They blamed the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on an anti-Islamic video made by an Egyptian-American from Los Angeles. They even threw him in jail for almost a year based on spurious “probation violations” charges. In reality, the terrorists attacked to exact revenge for secret raids against them coordinated by Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan. Further, US officials were in Benghazi to transfer weapons from Libya to Syria, between radical Islamists. That led to another lie calling ISIS “moderate” rebels.

Lesson 7 – The US-Led Terror Wars Produce More Terrorists

The US military interventions in the Middle East have created more terrorists. In September 2001, al Qaeda consisted of 400 people hiding in eastern Afghanistan. Scott Horton doesn’t give an exact number of their numbers today (though some have estimated at least over 20,000), but he listed al Qaeda-affiliated organizations operating all over the Middle East. Just about every country mentioned in Enough Already now has al Qaeda or Bin Ladenite-style forces in it. Ironically, al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is at another low point now that the Taliban is back in control.

Lesson 8—The US Primarily Kills Civilians 

The book throughout presents death and casualty numbers for these wars. Based on those numbers, they roughly kill about 100 times more civilians than combatants. During the 1990s, US bombings and sanctions killed around 500,000 Iraqi civilians. Drone strikes in Pakistan often targeted civilians based on faulty intelligence. Even when they hit terrorists, civilians die because the strikes hit public spaces or community gatherings. Tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians have died because of the war and the blockade resulting in mass starvation there. US-backed al Qaeda forces killed thousands of civilians during the Libyan Civil War of 2011. The same exact thing happened in Syria as ISIS was notorious for massacring civilians in the areas they conquered.

Lesson 9—The US has Lost Every War It Started in the Middle East

They haven’t “won” one war in the Middle East. The war in Afghanistan ended with the US giving the country back to the Taliban. In Yemen, the Houthis won and continue to control the main population centers. In Mali, Somalia, and Libya, al Qaeda-affiliated groups are in power. The closest thing to a US victory is Libya since they armed al Qaeda to take out Gadhafi. In Syria, Bashar Al Assad is still in power. Even though the US was successful in deposing Saddam Hussein, the current government is strongly allied with Iran over the US. With such a list of failures the only sensible path is to pursue peaceful interactions.

Lesson 10—The US Terror Wars Hurt Americans

The wars hurt normal American citizens in several different ways. Most directly, 7000 American soldiers have been killed with more wounded. Thousands more are suicidal and living lives of desperation because of PTSD.

The factor affecting most Americans is that the US government pays for military interventions through inflation, debt, and taxation. Simply put, they are stealing from us. As a result, it has become harder for Americans to purchase a home or build a family. This lack of economic opportunity also affects crime rates and homelessness.

Last, the tools used in those foreign wars are now used on American citizens. The most serious threats to our liberty come from the PATRIOT Act, police militarization, and the NDAA, which allows the government to jail citizens with no due process. I would say that we’ve had enough already. It’s time to end the war on terrorism and every other war we are supporting in the world.

The race to shock and awe with the greatest number of tax cuts ahead of the November 5 election is nearing its climax.

Donald Trump said he’d consider exempting police officers, firefighters, active duty military and veterans from paying taxes, the Republican nominee’s latest campaign trail idea to deliver tax breaks to key groups of supporters.

“It’s something I would think about,” Trump said in response to a question about excluding first responders and military members from tax bills on an online show Maintaining with Tyrus that aired Friday.

“You’re like my tax person there, but yeah. I mean something has to be done,” he said. “It’s almost an incentive to where you can get people interested.”

The idea to exempt members of the military and first responders from taxation is the latest in a long list of tax proposals Trump has talked about while campaigning against Kamala Harris. He’s pledged to i) eliminate taxes on tipped wages, ii) taxes on overtime pay and iii) taxes on Social Security benefits.

To be sure, Trump didn’t give any more details about the service member tax exclusion, and any such ideas would require congressional approval in order to become law, which is why absent a Republican sweep most of Trump’s promises will end up as being just hot air.

The no-taxes-on-military-and-first-responders idea could be among the largest new tax cuts he’s discussed to date, exempting more than 20 million people from federal tax payments. According to Bloomberg, there are about 18 million living veterans in the US, roughly 1.3 million active duty troops, approximately 1 million police offers in the US and more than 300,000 professional firefighters, according to several estimates. The US does offer some broad tax exemption to military members, but that is largely limited to people who are serving in active combat zones.

Over the last several months, Trump has rolled out a steady drumbeat of politically beneficial tax cut plans focused on key election constituencies, as a way to appeal to voters in an extremely tight election — particularly, low-and-middle-income Americans frustrated by high prices. The Republican nominee has thrown out such a wide range of tax proposals that even his own advisers are unsure about which ones he intends to enact if elected.

Now that it is clear that neither candidate gives a rat’s ass about the war-time US budget deficit which just hit a mindblowing 6% of GDP despite US GDP allegedly growing at a 3%+ rate…

… Trump it taking his tax break promises to the limit while also campaigning on extending the tax cut first passed when he was president. Major portions of that law, including lower tax brackets for households and deductions for small businesses, are set to expire at the end of 2025. Trump has also pledged to further lower the corporate rate to 15% from 21% and expand the state and local tax deduction, a write-off popular in New York and California where Republicans face close House elections to keep their majority in the chamber.

Economists have warned that his policy portfolio may balloon the federal debt, adding as much as $15 trillion to the debt over the next decade, according to an estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Trump contends that economic growth and energy production would offset the loss in tax revenue.

Of course, the only other presidential candidate that could balloon the federal debt more than Trump is Kamala Harris, whose admin has seen US debt grow by $8 trillion, with US debt growth set to double or triple if her promises of reparations to blacks are realized.

In the Friday interview, Trump also suggested military members should become teachers when asked about measures to secure schools.

“So what about teachers that are in the military and they’re teachers, they leave the military, they become history teachers,” Trump said. “They’re in the room and they get to know the students and they know how to use a gun. You can’t have people that don’t have any idea about what to do with guns.”

Some states, including Iowa and Tennessee, have passed laws allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons on school campuses, a controversial measure that has faced broad criticism from teachers unions and some parents, who say that will make schools less safe.

Authored by James Bovard,

When did preventing election fraud become a violation of the Voting Rights Act?

According to President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, it is now a federal crime to prevent illegal ballots in presidential elections. 

Barely 30 days before the 2024 election, the Justice Department sued the state of Virginia to prohibit its removal of the names of noncitizens from voting rolls. Gov. Glenn Youngkin was enforcing a 2006 Virginia law, but the Biden administration portrayed that action as an attack on “the cornerstone of our democracy.” Youngkin denounced the federal lawsuit as “a desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy of the elections” in Virginia.

The Virginia lawsuit is simply the latest in Democrats’ long war against honest voting, which began with the Clinton administration’s Motor Voter Act. That 1993 law mandated voter registration in every welfare and food-stamp office in the nation. Brent Thompson, executive director of the Fair Government Foundation, observed in 1996, “The Motor Voter law did away with a panoply of anti-fraud mechanisms long relied on by the states to police and deter fraudulent voting.”

In 2015, the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned voter identification requirements as part of a “sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people.” A Washington Post headline aptly summarized her message: “Hillary Clinton Declares War on Voter ID.” Verifying identification was unnecessary because, as long as enough ballots showed up with a check by Hillary’s name, she would be irrevocably entitled to all the power she could seize in the following four years. 

Lax voting procedures in some states were insufficient to enable Hillary to capture the White House. But the panic induced by Covid-19 enabled politicians to radically loosen the rules for the next presidential election. Many states made it easier—if not automatic—to vote by mail, even though a 2012 New York Times analysis concluded that “fraud in voting by mail is… vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention.” Some states abandoned any effort to verify mail ballots, dropping requirements for matching signatures, return addresses, or having a witness verify the person and the vote. Civil Rights Commissioner J. Christian Adams noted that “Democrats succeeded in tossing out state laws related to absentee ballot verification, deadlines and a whole range of laws all in the name of Covid.”

Neither the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (rules for federal elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”) nor state law stopped the rigging of the 2020 vote. Michigan sent “unsolicited absentee-voter ballot applications by mail to all 7.7 million registered Michigan voters…without signature verification as expressly required” by state law. The Wisconsin Elections Commission approved setting up to 500 unmanned ballot drop boxes in major Democratic cities in violation of Wisconsin law. That commission  and local election officials encouraged all Wisconsin “voters to unlawfully declare themselves ‘indefinitely confined’—which under Wisconsin law allows the voter to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements,” as the Texas Attorney General noted in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that election officials acted illegally, but that did nothing to nullify the hundreds of thousands of votes that came in via illicit loopholes. Biden carried Wisconsin by 20,000 votes.

To stifle controversy over electoral rule changes, Biden’s media allies created a fairy tale. A week after Election Day, the New York Times ran a banner headline across the top of the front page: “Election Officials Nationwide Find No Fraud.” How did the Times know? Their reporters basically called election officials in each state and asked, “Did y’all have any fraud?” A total lack of fraud in an election with more than 100 million voters would have required divine intervention to achieve. Biden’s 2020 victory became the election equivalent of the Immaculate Conception. A Washington Post headline scoffed that anyone who doubted Biden’s victory was an “Election Denier”—placing them in the same odious category as Holocaust deniers. An ABC News analysis portrayed distrust of the election results as a form of mental illness.

Most of the American media pretended that voter fraud was so rare that the mere suggestion of its occurrence was a heresy against democracy. But a few weeks after Biden was sworn in as president, a federal investigation revealed that the U.S. government bankrolled some of the most brazenly corrupt elections in modern times. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), issued a report titled, “Elections: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan,” that should have received far more attention in Washington and beyond. SIGAR revealed that the net result of 15 years of U.S. pro-democracy assistance was that Afghanistan’s 2019 presidential election was “the most corrupt the country had ever held.” U.S. tax dollars poured into the coffers of Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission to safeguard voting, but that agency was a prime source of the most shameless vote stealing. U.S. aid enabled the Afghan government to purchase sophisticated electronic voting systems. But SIGAR’s report warned that “because governments often control electoral commissions and the procurement of election technology, they are well placed to use it to commit fraud.” SIGAR ruefully noted, “The true purpose of adopting election technologies may not be to actually reduce fraud, but to create the illusion of doing so.” A U.S. Army colonel who deployed several times to Afghanistan told SIGAR that as early as 2006, the Afghan government had “self-organized into a kleptocracy.” Officials who were stealing everything else never hesitated to steal votes. The collapse of democratic legitimacy paved the way for the collapse of the U.S. puppet regime in Kabul in August 2021.

The Biden administration sought to exploit Covid-era precedents to turn America into a Drop Box Democracy where minimal efforts by voters automatically sanctify maximum power for politicians. In 2021, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act, to force all states to adopt the most unreliable electoral procedures used during the pandemic. The bill, which failed in the Senate, would have compelled all future federal elections to permit paid ballot-harvesting and universal mail-in voting, prohibit checking voter identification, and require states to count ballots that arrive ten days after an election. Many of the same Democrats who championed Covid vaccine passports, which disproportionately barred blacks from restaurants and gyms, also insist that requiring voters to show identification is Jim Crow at its worst.

Histrionics and shenanigans continue to be the Democrats’ preferred substitute for election integrity:

• Kamala Harris objected to voter identification requirements because she bizarrely claimed it was “almost impossible” for rural voters to photocopy their identification papers.
• The city of Detroit responded to a Republican National Party Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for ballot drop box surveillance footage by claiming that the footage had been deleted—after the FOIA request was received. Detroit was notorious for shrouding its vote counting on Election Night 2020, blocking poll watchers from witnessing Biden’s miraculous comeback.
• In Georgia, Judge Thomas Cox on Wednesday struck down the Georgia State Election Board’s new rules to require video surveillance of ballot drop boxes and to regulate ballot-harvesting.
• Lawsuits are proceeding regarding lax standards for absentee mail-in ballots in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, and elsewhere.

Preventing bogus ballots should not be treated like a moral or theological issue. When did verifying votes become a crime against democracy? Why is the Justice Department crusading to turn voting into an entitlement program for non-citizens? Do Democrats seek to make the actual voting as fraud-ridden as politicians’ campaign promises?  Elections need rigorous safeguards against fraud because, as Thomas Paine warned long ago, “the trade of governing has always been monopolized by… the most rascally individuals of mankind.” Four presidential elections since 2000 have been heavily tainted by allegations of foul play. American democracy has zero legitimacy to spare at this point.