Via The Brownstone Institute,

Throughout this election cycle, we have witnessed an incessant assault on our First Amendment.

The regime sent dissidents to prison, destroyed opposition news sites, colluded to control the free flow of information, bankrupted its critics, and boasted that it would criminalize “misinformation.”

The election threatens the death knell for free expression in the United States as Kamala Harris and her lead attorney, Marc Elias, vow to punish anyone who questions their pursuit of power. 

No political actor has been more influential in overturning election integrity efforts than Marc Elias. Recently, he led the crusade to overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, which banned the use of “drop boxes” in the state. 

In deciding whether to hear the case, Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley called the Elias-led litigation a “shameless effort to readjust the balance of political power in Wisconsin.” Elias was successful, and dropboxes are now taking votes in Wisconsin, a state that may be the tipping point in the election.

In 2020, President Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes. The rejection rate for absentee ballots plummeted from 1.4% to 0.2% as 1.9 million of the state’s 3.3 million voters cast absentee ballots. 

Similarly, Elias led lawsuits to defend dropboxes in Pennsylvania. In 2020, President Biden received 75% of the 2.5 million mail-in ballots and won the state by under 100,000 votes. 

But temporary political victories are insufficient for Elias. Along with Project 65, Elias has called for the disbarment of attorneys who challenge him in court. “I don’t think any lawyer should have a bar license for the privilege of destroying our country’s democratic traditions,” Elias insists, though “democratic traditions” apparently means months of absentee voting without signature verification or photo identification. He demanded an “accountability structure” for those who challenge the Democrats’ mandated standards for a “free and fair election.” 

Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, evidently share this intolerance for dissent. Walz has insisted that the First Amendment does not protect “misinformation or hate speech…especially around our democracy.” The Biden-Harris administration has fiercely championed censorship and the regulation of social media content.

Now, they threaten to jail anyone who criticizes their pursuit of power. Their judges – likely to be in the mold of Ketanji Brown Jackson – will not let the First Amendment “hamstring” their efforts to reshape the American government. And perhaps most tellingly, they’ll censor the critiques that are most obviously true. 

“Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

–Jimmy Carter, 2005

We have long known the threat that absentee ballots pose to our elections. Following the controversy of the 2000 Presidential election, the United States formed a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, chaired the group.

After almost five years of research, the group published its final report – “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.” It offered a series of recommendations to reduce voter fraud, including enacting voter-ID laws and limiting absentee voting. The commission was unequivocal: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Yet, Elias and Harris would gladly disbar any attorney who uttered such a sentence in court. 

The report continued: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

Recent history supports this thesis. Just last week, a Chinese national illegally voted in Michigan. He was only caught because he brought it to the attention of authorities, who later revealed that his vote (though admittedly invalid) will still count. 

The 1997 Miami mayoral election resulted in 36 arrests for absentee ballot fraud. A judge voided the results and ordered the city to hold a new election due to “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional, and criminal conduct.” The results were reversed in the subsequent election.

Following Dallas’s 2017 City Council race, authorities sequestered 700 mail-in ballots signed “Jose Rodriguez.” Elderly voters alleged that party activists had forged their signatures on their mail-in ballots. Miguel Hernandez later pled guilty to the crime of forging their signatures after collecting unfilled ballots and using them to support his candidate of choice.

The following year, it appeared that Republican Mark Harris defeated Democrat Dan McCready in a North Carolina Congressional race. Election officials noticed irregularities in the mail-in votes and refused to certify the election, citing evidence and “claims of…concerted fraudulent activities.” The state ordered a special election the following year.

In 2018, the Democratic National Commission challenged an Arizona law that set safeguards around absentee voting, including limiting who could handle mail-in ballots. US District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, an Obama appointee, upheld the law.

“Indeed, mail-in ballots by their very nature are less secure than ballots cast in person at polling locations,” he wrote.

He found that “the prevention of voter fraud and preservation of public confidence in election integrity” were important state interests and cited the Carter-Baker Commission’s finding that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

In May 2020, New Jersey held municipal elections and required all voting take place via mail due to Covid. The State’s third largest city, Paterson, held its election for City Council. Election officials rejected 19% of the ballots from Paterson, a city with over 150,000 residents. While Paterson’s election was particularly troublesome, mail-in ballots were problematic across the state. Thirty other New Jersey municipalities held vote-by-mail elections that day, and the average disqualification rate was 9.6%.

New Jersey brought voting fraud charges against City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, and two other men for their “criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election.” All four were charged with illegally collecting, procuring, and submitting mail-in ballots.

A state judge later ordered a new vote, finding that the May election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters. It was rife with mail in vote procedural violations constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance.”

In Wisconsin, the April 2020 primary election offered further evidence of the challenges and corruption surrounding mail-in voting. Following the primary, a postal center outside Milwaukee discovered three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached their intended recipients. Fox Point, a village outside Milwaukee, has a population of under 7,000 people. 

Beginning in March, Fox Point received between 20 and 50 undelivered absentee ballots per day. In the weeks leading up to the election, the village manager said that increased to between 100 and 150 ballots per day. On Election Day, the town received a plastic mail bin with 175 unmailed ballots. “We’re not sure why this happened,” said the village manager. “Nobody seems to be able to tell me why.”

Democrats admitted the system threatened election integrity. “This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went further. “It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” he said. Cuomo continued, “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”

The Wisconsin primary also featured special elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A liberal judge upset the incumbent conservative justice, and partisans embraced their overhaul of the electoral system. The New York Times reported: “Wisconsin Democrats are working to export their template for success – intense digital outreach and a well-coordinated vote-by-mail operation – to other states in the hope that it will improve the party’s chances in local and statewide elections and in the quest to unseat President Trump in November.” 

Scores of other reports of election fraud came forward as the Democratic Party used the pretext of Covid to reshape American elections. Despite the corruption, lost ballots, and admitted threats to electoral integrity, the process had been a success in political terms; their candidate had won. The ends had justified the means. Citizens lost faith in their election process, and political leaders readily admitted that their concerns were justified; but the professional politicos and their mouthpiece, the New York Times, characterized the disaster as a “template for success.”

The stakes of the election could not be more stark. We either remain free to criticize those who reign over us, or we surrender this nation to a cabal of censorious thugs who will remain insatiable in their pursuit of ever-more power. 

Tesla’s 1950s-inspired drive-in Supercharging station, currently under construction at 7001 Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood, recently installed a giant 45-foot LED television in the parking lot. 

The West Hollywood Supercharger station is the next generation of Tesla charging stations, featuring a restaurant, drive-in movie theater, and dozens of charging bays. Tesla seems eager to spice up the currently dull charging experience by blending the 1950/60s Americana style with cutting-edge new technology. 

Teslarati’s Zachary Visconti first reported on the new construction development: 

Tesla has been hard at work on its Southern California diner, Supercharger, and drive-in movie theater location over the past year or so, and a recent update shows that the site has finally gotten its first full movie screen.

…

The screens, one of which still needs the final LED display, will run from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., while the diner and charging stations will be open 24 hours a day, according 247Tesla. The screens will also reportedly be visible from both the diner building and the Supercharging stations.

Here’s the full video:

From EVs to catching giant rockets with ‘chopsticks’ …

Mechazilla has caught the Super Heavy booster! pic.twitter.com/6R5YatSVJX

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 13, 2024

… to space age vehicles …

Did you expect the Tesla Robovan? pic.twitter.com/uIZz8GFAHv

— Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) October 31, 2024

And robots. 

This is how Tesla Bot can generate $1 trillion in profit per year for $TSLA:

1/ Ratio of humanoid robots to humans will be 2 to 1

2/ Equates to ~10 billion humanoid robots on earth

3/ Build rate of humanoid robots on earth will be 1 billion per year

4/ If Tesla makes 10% of… https://t.co/tbyxMOddct pic.twitter.com/2Cfjdb6XW4

— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) October 29, 2024

Musk appears to have a deep love for ‘Americana’ and wants to inspire the next generation to look toward the stars to spark a new wave of innovation and power the nation forward. It all begins with freedom and healthy youngsters.

Authored by Thomas Neuburger via “God’s Spies’ Substack,

What does the country look like, four years down the road, after a Trump or Harris victory?

Many people have made election predictions (some in abundance), but few have looked at the post-electoral state.

What happens if Harris wins? What does a Trump II world look like?

I offer below what Ryan Grim sees post-November. I think in the main he’s right. His virtue is that he avoids conventional thinking and looks at what’s real.

The whole piece went out to his Drop Site News subscribers and is also available there. But I’d like to offer it here; I know our readers are thoughtful and decidedly unconstrained by conventional ways. No one wants to fall prey to “what everyone knows to be true” without close examination.

Grim’s analysis, with his permission, is printed in full below. Some comments first.

A Pyrrhic victory

Grim holds that if Harris wins, it will work like a loss. First, she’d likely rule without House and/or Senate support.

Without the Senate, Harris will have a hard time confirming a dog catcher, let along [sic] a judge or a cabinet nominee. With the Senate but without the House, she won’t be able to get any of her agenda through. Worse, the debt ceiling will be hit in January, before she’s even inaugurated. 

Would Democrats, especially decidedly unpopulist ones, be willing to take advantage of the advantages that populism-by-executive order confers? They haven’t yet. Grim is doubtful they will — to do so, Harris would have to find “populist Jesus” — and I would agree. Democrats are self-defined as the party of status quo Jesus. “Nothing will fundamentally change,” we’re regularly told, a contrast to the change their electoral opponents would bring.

For that plan to work, people have to like what they see. Playing it safe in a land this dissatisfied won’t produce lasting wins.

Grim also thinks a Harris win now tees up a Republican win in 2028.

A status quo powerless Democrat with no personal base of support (“support for Kamala is more accurately described as opposition to Trump and support for Democratic policies generally”), ruling a party reduced to “an upper-middle-class center,” is not a winning combination, especially if it follows a term where little gets done.

What kind of dictatorship?

After a Trump win, many predict a dictatorship. Grim disagrees:

Even with two new justices, the Supreme Court is not willing to turn power over to him. Trump is their tool to wield power, and they will be content to see him retire from the field. Trump also lacks the support of the military leadership. Without the court or the military, he has no path to hold on to power illegally.

“Without the court or the military” — sounds pretty third-world to me. That’s how Egypt is ruled. Just wanted to point that out.

The Realignment

This will take much more thought, but the start point is here:

[T]he class realignment already underway … leaves a coalition of the working class and the super rich in the Republican party. That’s an extremely dangerous coalition, and while it will be hampered by Trump’s defeat, it would be structurally strengthened longterm by a Harris victory[.]

What it looks like when all the ripe apples have dropped is anyone’s guess. Grim thinks its possible that Republicans, if Democrats keep shedding their base, could “lock in generational power” in 2028.

We’ll see if that’s true: it’s a “dangerous coalition” indeed. What happens with working class Sanders populists — yes, there are many; Sanders might have wiped the floor with 2016 Trump — is clearly up in the air. Rich material for a novelist.

The NatSec state

Here Grim is silent, but we don’t have to be. At this point, no president can oppose the cemented-in apparatus, our heroes who “maintain security.” (Trump on Joe Rogan talked about how he was convinced not to release the JFK files as he first intended. Listen between the lines and you hear, “Sir, you don’t want to do that.”)

To the extent there’s real rebellion in the U.S., there will be real repression, more than what’s already here. What elites do abroad, they will do at home, given a sufficiently media-marginalized target. (The military calls this “preparing the battlefield.”)

There are only two end points historically for this kind of collision — a state in chaos (think ‘60s and ‘70s rebellion) or a locked-down, Stasi society, surveilled and policed. Ask yourself, how would today’s guardians of security handle the 1960s? Gloves on or gloves off?

Now for Grim’s analysis. If you want just his bottom line, skip down to “What It Means”. Enjoy.

*  *  *

Ryan Grim’s election predictions

What will realistically happen if Harris or Trump wins

Just like Jeff Bezos, I would never tell you who to vote for. You don’t need that from me anyway. What I can do though is offer a few thoughts on what might happen if either candidate is elected, which I haven’t seen anybody try to do with any seriousness.

According to Elon Musk, if Kamala Harris wins, there’ll never be another election, and according to lots of Democrats, if Trump wins, he’ll turn into a dictator. Both are wrong. The truth is more complicated but not necessarily less frightening. In tonight’s newsletter, I’ll game out what that might look like…

If Kamala wins:

Congress goes

If Harris wins, the chance she also takes Congress relies on a number of miraculous upsets. Joe Manchin is leaving the Senate, and his Senate seat is leaving the Democratic caucus for the rest of all of our lives. That takes Dems from 51 down to 50 seats. Jon Tester won extremely narrow races in Montana in 2006, 2012, and 2018, and he’s about as good a rural politician as you’re going to find, but Montana’s rightward drift might be too much for him to overcome. Polls have him down. If they’re right, he’s toast, and that brings Democrats down to 49 seats. 

To get back to 50 – which would let Tim Walz break ties – they’d need to hold on to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin (all doable, even likely) but also win in either Florida or Texas – or Nebraska. 

If you’ve been following our coverage of the Nebraska Senate race, you know independent populist Dan Osborn has a genuine shot at upsetting the incumbent Republican. Internal polls I’ve heard about from both sides, however, suggest Trump’s ads tagging him as a “Democrat in disguise” may have done enough damage to blunt his momentum. If he wins though, I’m confident he’d caucus with Democrats, and that would make a majority. But he’s still a longshot.

Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker and member of Congress, has a credible chance of beating Ted Cruz. The question will be whether pollsters missed an influx of Democratic donors to the Lone Star state. If they did and the polls are slightly off, he could win. But he’s also a longshot.

Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell could theoretically pull off an upset in Florida, but man is that hard to see. So Democrats would need one of those four longshots—Montana, Nebraska, Texas, or Florida—to come through.

And then they’d have to win the House, too. 

Without the Senate, Harris will have a hard time confirming a dog catcher, let along a judge or a cabinet nominee. With the Senate but without the House, she won’t be able to get any of her agenda through. Worse, the debt ceiling will be hit in January, before she’s even inaugurated. 

Bankruptcy?

With control of Congress, Republicans will play economic-armageddon brinksmanship, take a chunk out of the global economy, get our credit-ratings downgraded, and probably extract a chunk of fiscal flesh in exchange for simply agreeing to pay the bills that are due. The other possibility, that we actually go over the cliff and get a mini or major financial crisis can’t be ruled out. 

Antitrust

Harris will then be left to govern strictly from the executive branch. She’d probably have to keep Lina Khan, whether she wants her as chair of the FTC or not, since Republicans wouldn’t confirm a replacement anyway. Her victory would be meaningful for climate action, as she’d continue to disperse and execute the clean energy policy and subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act, while Trump would smother it (or send it all to Elon Musk?).

Taxes

Trump’s tax cuts also expire during Harris’s first two years in office, meaning she’ll negotiate their extension. There, she has the advantage, because if she does nothing, the old tax policy snaps back into place. Her ability to do anything at all her first two years would be limited to this tax realm and, potentially, immigration. She’s likely to sign a tough border and immigration bill into law. 

It’s hard to see how she emerges from this two years with anything higher than an approval rating in the low-30s. Given she has no organic base of support—support for Kamala is more accurately described as opposition to Trump and support for Democratic policies generally—it’s impossible to say how low her floor is. We might find out. 

Ukraine

Russia is making major advances in Ukraine and the U.S. public is no longer interested in the war. Harris will probably have to end it with some sort of ceasefire/non-deal that leaves Ukraine in a wildly worse off position than they’d have been in if they’d made a deal in early 2022—a deal the U.S. scuttled at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Or she could prove she’s a tough commander-in-chief—leader of the “most lethal military” ever, as she puts it—by escalating the conflict and striking deeper inside Russia, risking nuclear war. Let’s hope it’s not that. The same dynamic could be at play with China, with much of her party leadership egging on confrontation.

The Mideast

I interviewed Israeli journalist Amir Tibon recently, who said that Netanyahu made a bet sometime around December that Trump would be elected president and therefore he was willing to take whatever minor grief he suffered from Biden for ignoring all the U.S. entreaties to protect civilians, allow in humanitarian aid, and negotiate in good faith toward a ceasefire. There was little grief. But, said Tibon, if Harris wins, Netanyahu will be exposed politically, and he predicted his government would collapse “within months.” A Harris win would signal to Netanyahu’s coalition partners that two of their big dreams will be at least put on hold for four years. Those two major ambitions, Tibon said, are reform of the Israeli courts in order to subsume them to the judiciary, and the Israeli settlement of Gaza. With those ambitions stymied, Netanyahu’s coalition becomes untenable.

Foiling Netanyahu’s bet on Trump is the most persuasive case I’ve heard for a vote for Harris. The problem, though, is what comes next. Tibon is confident a candidate from a coalition that does not includes the ultra-orthodox or settler movements would triumph and that any new government that replaced Netanyahu would be similarly supportive of the various Israeli war efforts, but more willing to cut a ceasefire-for-hostages deal. But I checked Tibon’s theory with people in Israel to the right of Tibon, and they agreed that the Netanyahu government would indeed fall and new elections would be called—but that Netanyahu would win those new elections. 

Abortion Rights

Harris wouldn’t be able to get anything through Congress, but having Democrats control the Justice Department and Health and Human Services would put some of the brakes on right-wing states pushing ahead with increasingly aggressive abortion restrictions, including laws that make it a crime to “traffick” a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Such laws are plainly unconstitutional, but Trump’s DoJ would do nothing to stop them, whereas a Harris administration would.

Midterms

Every president faces brutal headwinds in their first midterm, and Republican gains are the most likely result of the 2026 midterms. The only pickup opportunities in the Senate would be in Maine and North Carolina, and both would be unwinnable in a Republican reaction year. The good news for Dems is they don’t have to defend many seats – Georgia and Michigan – but they’d still fall that much further behind in the House. 

2028

Republicans would be the heavy favorites in 2028. Democrats seem to hate primaries, so maybe Harris doesn’t face one even if she’s in the low 30s, with Democratic rivals holding their fire for 2032. The most likely outcome, then, of a Harris victory in 2024 is a Republican sweep in 2029, giving them a trifecta and the opportunity to lock in Supreme Court control for several generations. That court could issue abortion-related rulings that would make Dobbs look downright liberal.

If Trump wins:

Let’s take seriously what Trump will actually do, versus what his opponents claim he’ll do. Some of the more lurid warnings, I think, are wildly overblown. But not all of them. It’s extremely likely he will assign significant resources toward a roundup of immigrants, and will do so in a flamboyant fashion, deploying the military if he can get away with it. If he’s extra lucky, there’ll be mass resignations of military brass as a result, allowing him to elevate loyalists. 

Stephen Miller, a deeply dangerous and strategic man, will have immense power. Trans rights will be in the crosshairs and so will abortion rights. 

I’m less worried about his promise to add a 20 percent tariff to everything. He continues to speak highly of Robert Lighthizer as his top trade adviser, and Lighthizer is very good at what he does. Lighthizer was Trump’s United States Trade Representative and lefty trade hands and unions were generally supportive of his approach, even as they had some disagreements. If Lighthizer guides trade policy, it won’t be reckless. 

Trump’s tax cuts from his first term will also come up for renewal, and I’d expect he’ll successfully extend and deepen them, particularly for the rich and corporations. 

He will fire an enormous number of federal employees. Whether he can hire enough to replace them is a different question, but at minimum he’ll be able to break a lot of federal agencies. 

He’ll go after the American university system with a vengeance. Look at what Chris Rufo has managed to do in Florida under Ron DeSantis for a flavor of what Trump could do nationally. 

He will rescind or simply not deploy much of the climate spending included in the Inflation Reduction Act. He hates eclectic vehicles, though his alliance with Elon Musk may protect some of that. 

Supreme Court

Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will retire, allowing Trump to appoint at least two more justices. 

Trump, however, will not have the capacity to become a dictator. Even with two new justices, the Supreme Court is not willing to turn power over to him. Trump is their tool to wield power, and they will be content to see him retire from the field. Trump also lacks the support of the military leadership. Without the court or the military, he has no path to hold on to power illegally. 

Voters will reject his displays of extremism at the polls in the 2026 midterms, likely delivering the House and Senate both to Democrats. They’ll impeach him immediately, just as Republicans will impeach Harris, but neither effort will have enough support in the Senate to go anywhere. In 2028, Republican voters will choose between J.D. Vance and opponents like Ted Cruz (unless he loses his Senate race, of course). 

The economy will probably take a cyclical downturn toward the end of Trump’s term, and he’ll be deeply unpopular. Democrats would be favored to win in 2028 and likely hold Congress, too. 

Mideast

It’s impossible to predict what Trump will do here. On the one hand, he calls himself “the candidate of peace”—on the other, he has said Biden’s biggest problem has been that he’s been too tough on Netanyahu and he should let him take the gloves off. Trump has been mad at Netanyahu for congratulating Biden on his win, but he knows Bibi has been rooting for him and doing what he can to help him win, and in Trump’s world alone, that means a lot to him. You know Trump as well as I do, I’ll let you guess on this one.

Ukraine

The conventional wisdom is that Putin will strike a deal to end the war if Trump wins, on favorable terms to Russia, given how much ground they’ve gained. On Ukraine, the CW is probably right.

China

Trump will do way more jawboning of China than Harris would, but he seems to have no appetite for a war. Let’s hope that prevails.

What It Means

So far, we’ve talked about the near-term future relying on historical precedent. That only gets us so far. We also have to look at the coalitional trends underway and ask how a victory by each candidate influences each. If Harris wins, Democrats will be rewarded for having skipped the nominating process and overseeing a genocide in Gaza. They will have done so while embracing the Cheneys and other neocons expelled from the MAGA coalition. They will now have to be understood as a faction of the Democratic coalition. With Democrats already becoming increasingly militaristic, that only pushes the party further toward a confrontational imperial foreign policy. 

Harris also ran detectably to Biden’s right when it came to labor, antitrust, and the economy. Winning on that message could convince Democrats that their dalliance with economic populism was unnecessary, which would speed up the class realignment already underway, with more working class voters of all races and genders feeling unrepresented by Democrats, who come to fully stand in for coastal elites. With Democrats representing an upper-middle-class center, that leaves a coalition of the working class and the super rich in the Republican party. That’s an extremely dangerous coalition, and while it will be hampered by Trump’s defeat, it would be structurally strengthened longterm by a Harris victory – unless Harris somehow finds populist Jesus like Biden did. There is still a strong faction of populist-progressives in the Democratic coalition, and Harris’s victory would not be the final word. But a Democrat who comes after Harris could be facing nearly insurmountable odds if Republicans are able to lock in generational power in 2028. 

The short version is that there’s reason to be optimistic that Harris may win. There’s reason to be scared if she does. Or doesn’t. Hope that helps.

Oil prices closed higher for a fifth straight day as traders were sensitive to geopolitical headlines (from Israel) and the domestic election situation.

The tension in the oil market is “palpable” as headlines around the U.S. election, turmoil in the Middle East, economic woes in China and a potential hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico “swirl,” Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth US, told MarketWatch.

“The reality of very short-term volatility has traders cutting risk and taking the shoot first, ask questions later approach the moment trades stop working.”

Additionally, a tropical storm threatens production from the Gulf of Mexico.

API

• Crude +3.13mm (0.00mm exp)

• Cushing +1.72mm

• Gasoline -928k (-900k exp)

• Distillates -852k (-300k exp)

US crude inventories continued their noisy run of the last few weeks with a bigger than expected crude build. Products saw inventory draws and stocks at the Cushing hub rose by the most since May…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI dipped very modestly on the API-reported crude draw, but is holding above $72 for now…

Oil prices maintained an upward trend Tuesday as “risk taking remains limited with many headlines expected in the next few days, coming from the Federal Reserve’s Policy meeting, China’s congressional meeting that will determine governmental stimulus, and the U.S. election,” Alex Hodes, director of energy market strategy at StoneX, wrote in Tuesday’s energy newsletter.

Finally, pump prices remain very low relative to crude and wholesale gasoline prices…

…with the election now behind us, how long before prices snap up higher?

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

This presidential campaign season may be one of those turning points in history for reasons good and bad. Anyone watching the one debate between the Republican and Democratic Party candidates would not have come away with the view that this was a great battle of competing principles and visions for the future. It was a campaign of name-calling and bullets, where one candidate avoided discussing ideas at all costs – and even avoided the media at all costs. Where the other candidate dodged two attempted assassinations while throwing red meat rhetoric to an understandably angry population.

It was a campaign where, more than ever, the mainstream media completely abandoned any idea of being a neutral source of information and instead jumped into the ring on the side of one candidate. In the one debate between presidential candidates, the mainstream media went so far as to “fact check” one candidate while giving the other a “pass.” The “fact check” turned out to be misinformation – something the mainstream media excels in – but they have long figured out that by the time the actual facts are in, people have already absorbed the falsehood.

According to the conservative Media Research Center, mainstream media coverage of the Trump campaign was 85 percent negative while its coverage of the Harris campaign was 78 percent positive. If accurate, it explains why the public holds the media in such contempt.

What felt missing in the campaign was a discussion of the real issues we are facing.

The destruction caused by interventionism in our economy, in our lives, and in the rest of the world.

There was no talk about the Federal Reserve and how it hurts the middle class, helps the wealthy, and greases the war machine.

Then, at the tail end, things got interesting.

Republican candidate for Vice President, JD Vance, mentioned last week that he had come to the view that the Federal Reserve was not the benevolent force for good that its supporters claim.

He didn’t say it in those exact words, but that was his point.

Then Trump surrogate campaigner Elon Musk made an announcement that no-doubt terrified the DC swamp: were he to get the government efficiency job Trump suggested, he’d start with a bang, cutting two trillion dollars from the Federal budget!

We even had a little fun with it.

After I posted some encouragement on Musk’s Twitter/X, he responded that he would be happy to have me join him looking for places to cut!

While the last thing I am looking for is another job, I am encouraged by the outpouring of support and happy to help any effort to correct the wrong path we have been going down – a path toward total bankruptcy.

Perhaps the most encouraging development this election cycle is the well-earned decline in the influence of the corrupt mainstream media.

When Elon posted a funny meme of the two of us cutting government on his Twitter/X platform, it garnered some 50 million views! Compare that to the steady decline of mainstream media viewership.

An alternative way of reporting and analyzing the events of our time is emerging on the ruins of the legacy media and it’s driving them insane.

Good.

Update(1508ET): Israeli hardline minister Ben Gvir has hailed Netanyahu’s firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, saying the prime minister “did well to remove” him. But protests have exploded in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, including a growing demonstration outside Netanyahu’s house in Caesarea.

A FOX correspondent on the ground has shown they are already huge in the late nighttime hours, and growing…

Tel Aviv right now. pic.twitter.com/TzgnwSydvm

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) November 5, 2024

A White House statement issued very quickly on the heels of the news, which pushed oil down, said: 

GALLANT HAS BEEN IMPORTANT PARTNER ON ISRAEL’S DEFENSE, U.S. WILL CONTINUE WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH ISRAEL’S NEXT DEFENSE MINISTER

“A White House National Security Council spokesperson hails outgoing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and says the Biden administration will continue to collaborate with his successor but avoids directly criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to fire him in the first White House reaction to the move,” Times of Israel writes.

“Minister Gallant has been an important partner on all matters related to the defense of Israel. As close partners, we will continue to work collaboratively with Israel’s next minister of defense,” the NSC spokesperson said.

The timing is curious, considering the US election:

Moments ago, another US official told The Times of Israel that Netanyahu’s decision to fire Gallant on the day of the US presidential election indicated that the premier sought to avoid pushback from Washington over the controversial decision to ax his defense minister in the middle of a war.

* * *

After hitting a session high just around noon, oil has since quite paradoxically tumbled to session lows following news that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, at a time when the country continues to fight wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and is increasingly in direct confrontation with Iran. And yes, for those saying oil should be surging on the news, you are not wrong, but today little makes sense.

“In the past months, trust has been cracked between myself and the defense minister,” Netanyahu said Tuesday in a statement released by his office.

The termination came after months of public disagreement between the two over the course of the war. Netanyahu said he was firing Gallant due to a breakdown in trust and gaps in positions between them. Gallant had publicly challenged Netanyahu’s failure to decide on a plan for Gaza’s long-term governance and for not prioritizing a deal to release Israeli and other hostages held in Gaza.

Netanyahu said longstanding disagreements between them over the conduct of the conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah had become impossible to bridge. The clashes “were accompanied by statements and actions that contradicted the decisions of the government and the security cabinet,” Netanyahu said, according to a statement from his office late Tuesday.

In his own statement, Gallant said “the security of the State of Israel always was, and will always remain my life’s mission.”

Foreign Minister Israel Katz was named as the new defense minister.

Gallant and Netanyahu are both members of Israel’s conservative Likud party but relations between them have been poor for months, with the men barely on speaking terms. Gallant has been pushing for a hostage release in exchange for a cease-fire in Gaza, while the prime minister has argued that Israel must remain in the Palestinian territory to fully defeat Hamas.  Additionally, Gallant has criticized the prime minister in meetings, parliamentary appearances and even news conferences.

Netanyahu’s political allies publicly made the case for firing Gallant in September, but the defense minister survived as Israel embarked on an aggressive new campaign in Lebanon that wiped out militant group Hezbollah’s top leadership and much of its armaments.

Ousting Gallant could have wide-ranging impacts on Israel’s multifront war and U.S. efforts to end it. He has been the anchor of the relationship with the U.S. and the most vocal advocate of the Biden administration’s efforts to reach a cease-fire in Gaza. Tension between the U.S. administration and Netanyahu has grown in recent months over the prime minister’s hard-line position in the talks and for a series of provocative military actions undertaken without much notice to the U.S.

Gallant has been a shock absorber in the relationship, speaking more than 70 times with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin by phone and several more times in person over the duration of the war, Pentagon announcements show.

In light of the above, it is strange to see oil tumbling as Gallant had always pushed for a more peaceful resolution while Bibi was the warhawk. Yet just because some oil algos decided to dump oil at the highs, and others immediately jumped on the momentum, Gallant’s termination is somehow viewed as an outcome favorable for oil prices when in reality it’s just the opposite.

Furthermore, the already fragile situation in Israel is on the verge of snapping with protests observed around Tel Aviv following news of the sacking.

Protests into the firing of Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant have begun in Tel Aviv, with Demonstrators currently blocking the Shalom Interchange. pic.twitter.com/l9Zl0izPlq

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) November 5, 2024

That said, today’s is the last day when the Biden Department of Oil Selling will have to slam oil; one the results of today’s election are in, oil will finally be allowed to trade higher once more. 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

A US Army soldier who was injured earlier this year while working on the US-constructed temporary pier off Gaza has died due to his wounds, CNN reported on Monday.

Sgt. Quandarius Davon Stanley, 23, was one of three US soldiers injured while working on the pier in May. At the time, the Pentagon said two suffered very minor injuries while the other was hurt severely enough to be evacuated for medical care.

The Pentagon insisted the injuries were “non-combat” related but didn’t share any details about the incident. It’s unclear what kind of injury Stanley suffered, but he was medically retired from the Army since he could no longer perform his job.

The US Army told CNN that Stanley died on October 31. “Stanley was injured while supporting the mission that delivered humanitarian aid to Gaza in May 2024 and was receiving treatment in long-term care medical center,” an Army spokesman said.

The Gaza pier failed to bring any relief to the Palestinians and only operated for about 20 days. It was repeatedly knocked out by weather since it was unable to handle the conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

When President Biden ordered the construction of the pier during his State of the Union address back in March, aid groups dismissed it as a public relations stunt since it would have been far more efficient to send more aid trucks through land crossings. But Biden refused to pressure Israel to allow more aid into the Strip.

According to a report from the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Inspector General, Biden ordered the construction of the pier despite warnings from USAID that it would undermine efforts to pressure Israel to allow more aid into Gaza via land crossings.

The report also said that the Pentagon was aware that operating the pier in the Eastern Mediterranean would be difficult since the sea conditions were often heavier than what it could handle.

Even it’s the final days of Biden’s presidency his poor leadership is still costing American Troops their lives. “We won’t set a foot in Gaza” then makes a shitty pier that failed over and over again only to be shut down as a total failure and now cost a soldier his life. https://t.co/dBQrb5b7JT

— Angry Cops (@AngryCops) November 5, 2024

The pier cost US taxpayers at least $230 million. At one point, it was broken apart by waves and had to be repaired for $22 million.

With just hours left until the close of polls (and today’s cash market), we share some observations from DB looking at how markets have reacted to the six previous elections and what was going on at the time. As DB’s Henry Allen notes, the reactions vary considerably: of the six elections since 2000, the S&P 500 was up in three cases by the end of November, and down in the other three. 10yr Treasury yields were down in four and up in two.

It’s worth bearing in mind that markets already account for expectations. So in 2008, there was little direct reaction, as Obama’s victory was widely expected. By contrast in 2016, Trump’s surprise victory was a big shock that led to a major rise in Treasury yields.

In addition, other events are happening at the same time. Markets were buoyant after 2020, but that was supported by Pfizer’s vaccine announcement the following week. In 2012, markets struggled as fears grew about the US fiscal cliff and Greece’s situation during the sovereign crisis. And back in 2008, markets plummeted amidst the Global Financial Crisis. So the election isn’t the only variable, and this week there’ll be a lot of focus on Thursday’s Fed decision as well,

2020 (Biden vs Trump)

Markets rally after election, initially on prospect of divided government with the Georgia Senate races pending, whilst vaccine news provides a further boost.

In 2020, the outcome was initially uncertain on the night, as President Trump outperformed the polls and his margins with Biden were tighter than expected. But it soon became apparent that Biden would win, even before his victory was formally declared by the networks on the Saturday.

At first markets rallied, as it looked as though there’d be a divided government scenario where Biden won the Presidency whilst Republicans kept the Senate. The Senate control would depend on two run-off elections in Georgia in early January, and even though the Democrats went on to win those and control the Senate, that wasn’t the expectation straight after November’s election. Indeed, the narrative behind the market rally at the time was that divided government might be positive, as a Republican Senate would prevent tax rises and higher regulation. And even though a Republican Senate would likely mean less fiscal stimulus, it meant markets priced in more action from the Fed, which gave the liquidity trade a boost.

On the Monday after the election, markets then got a further boost from the Pfizer vaccine announcement, which was then followed up by other vaccine candidates. The efficacy numbers were at the upper end of expectations, and it alleviated fears that society might have to live with the Covid-19 pandemic on a more permanent basis, offering a path back to normality. So risk assets did well after the election, but there were pandemic-related events happening too, which was the most important variable for the global economy that year.

2016 (Trump vs Clinton)

Surprise Trump victory leads to rapid rise in Treasury yields.

Of the 21st century elections, 2016 was the most surprising by far from a market and political perspective, as the polls had widely pointed to a Hillary Clinton victory, as had prediction and betting markets. Moreover, the outcome was a Republican sweep in Congress too, not just a Trump presidency.

With the Republicans back in control, that opened the door to fiscal stimulus, which later happened with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that was signed in 2017. This included both income and corporate tax cuts, and Treasury yields rose substantially after the result, as they hadn’t priced in such an outcome beforehand.

This saw the 10yr Treasury yield rise by +20bps on the Wednesday, then another +9bps on Thursday, Friday was a holiday, and on Monday it was up +11bps. It continued to rise into year-end as well, moving from 1.85% on election night to 2.44% by year-end.

2012 (Obama vs Romney)

Concerns about fiscal cliff and Euro sovereign crisis lead to risk-off move.

The 2012 election result was broadly in line with expectations, as a second term for Obama had been generally expected, and the result became clear that evening.

However, markets then saw a risk-off move afterwards, with the S&P 500 down -2.4% the day after, and then another -1.2% the day after that.

In part, that was driven by concerns about the so-called “fiscal cliff”. These were automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to occur, which risked causing a major growth slowdown. Moreover, the Republicans kept control of the House in this election, meaning that divided government was set to continue, and Obama would still need to compromise with Republicans to pass legislation. So there was concern about whether a compromise could be reached in time.

Alongside the fiscal cliff, the Greek situation was also in focus. That week, markets were looking for when the EU would decide to release the latest bailout funds. Given the uncertainty, sovereign bond spreads widened across the continent in response, and the gap of Italian 10yr yields over bunds widened +7bps the day after the election, and another +13bps the day after that. So the moves in Europe were also dampening global sentiment after the election too.

2008 (Obama vs McCain)

Sharp market selloff driven by Global Financial Crisis and very weak data, not the election.

In political terms, this was the least surprising result of the 21st century presidential elections. Obama had consistently led in the opinion polls, and the result wasn’t close either, with a 365-173 margin in the electoral college, along with a popular vote lead for Obama of 7 points. From a market perspective, there wasn’t much of a direct election reaction, as an Obama victory was widely priced in.

However, markets did sell off substantially, as the election happened against the backdrop of the Global Financial Crisis, with the economy still getting worse at this point. Indeed, the S&P 500 was down -5.3% on the Wednesday straight after the election, as the ADP’s report showed jobs contracted by -157k in October (vs. -102k expected), whilst the ISM services index came in at 44.4 (vs. 47.0 expected). Then on the Thursday, the index fell another -5.0%.

At this point, the broader context was utterly dire. Less than two months before the election, Lehman Brothers had collapsed, and on October 15 the S&P 500 saw its biggest one-day decline (-9.03%) since Black Monday 1987. Less than a week before election day on October 29, the Fed then delivered another 50bp rate cut, taking rates down to 1%.

2004 (Bush vs Kerry)

Markets rally amidst policy continuity with a second term for George W. Bush.

In political terms, the 2004 election was fairly close, with incumbent President George W. Bush winning just 286 electoral college votes, making it the last time neither candidate received more than 300 electoral college votes. But the outcome was broadly as expected, because the polls had put Bush ahead over the couple of months beforehand, and he was also polling ahead in the key battleground states such as Ohio. The result meant that Bush won a second term as President, and the Republicans kept control of both the House and the Senate too.

Markets rallied strongly after the election result, with the S&P 500 up +1.1% on Wednesday, and then +1.6% on Thursday. The narrative was that this meant there would be policy continuity, and taxes were less likely to go up under a Bush presidency. That was helped by strong data after the election, as the Wednesday saw the ISM non-manufacturing report come in at 59.8 (vs. 58.0 expected). Then on the Thursday, the initial jobless claims were at 332k (vs. 340k expected).

2000 (Bush vs Gore)

Markets see a clear risk-off move as election uncertainty drags on for a full month.

This was an incredibly close result, and the most contentious of recent times. The outcome hinged on the state of Florida, which was required by both candidates to win an Electoral College majority. On election night, the Florida result swung back and forth between Gore and Bush. With the election hinging on a margin of less than 0.5%, a mandatory machine recount in the state was triggered anyway. Gore’s team also requested a manual recount of ballots in four Florida counties, all of which were in Democratic areas.

Extended legal wrangling took place over the ensuing month, as the Bush team sought to stop the ongoing recounts. Although the Florida votes were then certified on November 26 with Bush having a 537-vote lead, Gore then sued as some recounts hadn’t been completed. Eventually, the case went to the Florida Supreme Court, which sided with Gore in ordering manual recounts of undervotes, which is where a vote had been cast but a machine had not recorded a vote.

The US Supreme Court suspended this manual recount on December 9 while it heard arguments, eventually ruling that the manual recount violated the 14th amendment ensuring the equal protection of law, and that it would not be possible for a recount to meet the “safe harbor” deadline of December 12 under federal law, which is a deadline where states have to decide their electors to the Electoral College six days before they meet.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, Gore formally conceded the race to Bush on December 13, five weeks after Election Day.

Amidst the uncertainty over the election outcome, the S&P 500 fell 1.6% the following day (November 8th), before seeing a further 0.7% and 2.4% decline on the Thursday and Friday respectively. In fact, November 2000 was the S&P 500’s worst monthly performance of that year, with an 8% decline from start to finish. With US equities losing ground, investors moved into US Treasuries, as 10yr yields fell from 5.86% at the close on Election Day to 5.26% on December 13 when Gore conceded.

The US and South Korea now say many thousands of North Korean troops are on the front lines, potentially engaging Ukrainian forces, with most of them located in Russia’s Kursk oblast, which has been under Ukrainian troop presence since the August cross-border offensive.

“More than 10,000 North Korean soldiers are currently in Russia, and we assess that a significant portion of them are deployed to front-line areas, including Kursk,” spokesman for South Korea’s defense ministry, Jeon Ha-kyou, told a briefing.

The Pentagon has said the same with spokesman Pat Ryder having stated Monday, “All indications are that they will provide some type of combat or combat support capability.” He added: “We would fully expect that the Ukrainians would do what they need to do to defend themselves and their personnel.”

The US administration has continued to warn that these foreign troops are “legitimate military targets” if they are found inside Ukraine and enter the fight.

Kiev has taken the allegations a step further, saying that already there’s been an exchange of fire between Ukrainian and North Korean troops. But it reportedly happened inside Russia.

“Ukrainian officials said on Monday that their forces had fired at North Korean soldiers in combat for the first time since their deployment by Russia to its western Kursk region,” FT writes of the new development.

The publication is calling the alleged instance “the first direct intervention by a foreign army since Russia’s full-scale invasion” as well as constituting an expansion of “what was already the largest land war in Europe since the second world war.”

“The first military units of the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] have already come under fire in Kursk,” Andriy Kovalenko, Ukraine’s high-ranking ‘counter-disinformation’ official, announced on Telegram. Another top intelligence official said the same but did not provide or confirm any details of the alleged clash.

Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha has urged his visiting German counterpart Annalena Baerbock on the “need for decisive action” in response to North Korea’s presence in the conflict.

“We urge Europe to realize that the DPRK troops are now carrying [out] an aggressive war in Europe against a sovereign European state,” Sybiha told a press conference.

The Pentagon estimates that North Korea has deployed 10 to 12 thousand troops in Russia’s Kursk region and warns that the troops would become legitimate military targets, if they “engage in combat support operations against Ukraine.” pic.twitter.com/QtEnpKyCOF

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 5, 2024

The Russian and North Korean governments have still not overtly or definitively confirmed the large deployment – especially not inside Ukraine – but have have strongly hinted at it, pointing to the defense pact inked between Presidents Putin and Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang this past summer.

President Zelensky has meanwhile been using the issue to demand that the US and NATO lift all restrictions on use of Western supplied long-range missiles against Russian territory. But the Western allies have not been responsive to the issue.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

During his final rally in Michigan, president Trump gave a succinct description of exactly who his supporters are pitted against.

During the two hour speech that started just after midnight, Trump referred to former speaker and Democrat kingpin Nancy Pelosi, noting “She’s a crooked person, she’s a bad person. Evil.”

“She’s an evil, sick, crazy b—-” he said, stopping short of saying the word “bitch.”

“It starts with a B, but I won’t say it. I wanna say it,” Trump boomed.

“I don’t use much [profanity], you know, every once in a while, and it’s never a real bad word, it’s never bad … but it is a little better when you use foul language,” he continued, adding “These are bad people.”

Watch:

Trump reminds supporters exactly who their opponents are. Cites Nancy Pelosi: “She’s a crooked person. She’s an evil, sick, crazy, B—, oh no. It starts with a B but I won’t say it. I want to say it.” Full report here: https://t.co/sjHK6UmsW6 pic.twitter.com/yeG6YOKrWR

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) November 5, 2024

Trump reiterated that his real opponent is not Kamala Harris but an “evil Democrat system”.

“We will defeat the corrupt system in Washington. Because I’m not running against Kamala, I’m running against an evil Democrat system. These are evil people,” he asserted.

“I wasn’t running against Biden either,” Trump further noted, adding “He was stuck in a basement. I didn’t even run against him. Now running against a very evil system, and we have to defeat that system, and America’s future will be an absolutely incredible one.”

Watch:

Trump reminds supporters what they are standing up against: “I’m not running against Kamala, I’m running against an evil Democrat system. These are evil people.” Full report here: https://t.co/sjHK6UmsW6 pic.twitter.com/m0ZcviSLEX

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) November 5, 2024

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.