Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

After the September 10, 2024, presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the Harris campaign became giddy.

And why not?

Pre-debate conventional wisdom had assured the country that underdog Harris would shock the nation with her endless wash/rinse/spin word salads of repeated phrases and memorized sound bites.

She supposedly would prove as shaky as Trump—the veteran of several presidential debates—would prove merciless in eviscerating her.

That did not happen. Post-debate polls of the first 24 hours showed clearly that the public felt Harris had won.

Why?

She stuck religiously to her pre-debate prep.

It was not difficult to anticipate what her tripartite script would be.

Joe Biden’s failed debate with Trump offered a model, along with the need to avoid Harris’s own known linguistic and cognitive liabilities:

One, Harris was told to bait the touchy Trump with smears and slights about his failed rallies, his racism, and his shaky businesses.

That way she could trigger him to lose his cool, go off-topic, rant, and turn off viewers.

And he did just that and often. Trump clearly did not prepare detailed answers, was not ready to be insulted, and was not reminded to relax—and smile, joke, and in Reaganesque fashion sluff off her certain slurs.

Two, she was not supposed to try thinking on her feet, no matter what the question asked.

Instead, Harris was always ordered to plug in her prepped and canned anecdotes, banalities, and bio-stories regardless of the topic or question. And she followed that off-topic boilerplate to spec.

Three, the campaign apparently knew they could rely on the moderators for four givens:

1. they were to fact-check Trump but never Harris. And they did that at least five times;

2. they were to demand follow-up answers from Trump to make him specifically answer the question addressed. And they did that numerous times, but not on a single occasion to Harris;

3. they were to ask Trump provocative questions to force him to deny that he was a racist, an insurrectionist, and an election denialist. But they were never to do so with Harris, whose many past outlandish statements, prevarications, flip-flops, and padded bio would have given the moderators similar rich fodder for cross-examination;

4. they would interrupt Trump to get him off tempo, but never Harris.

The result was that a cool, if not smug, Harris mostly smiled while an irate Trump scowled and raged.

Thus, to the millions who watched the slugfest, Harris seemed more “presidential” and therefore “won” the debate.

When the size of the huge television audience—some 67 million watched the debate—was announced, team Harris naturally assumed her win might bounce her even higher than did her initial July surge after the forced abdication of President Biden from the ticket.

But then strange post-debate developments followed...

Either a Tiny or No Bounce?

Harris did not receive the anticipated large bounce.

In fact, the polls still remain mostly even. She may have arrested Trump’s pre-debate surge a bit, but otherwise, a debate that polled so heavily in her favor oddly still seems to have made little difference in the still up-for-grabs race.

Stranger still, Harris, the supposedly clear winner, almost immediately asked for another debate. Her handlers suggested that this demand displayed newfound confidence from her win—as if an assured, second knockout debate would ensure her permanent pull away.

But Trump and others countered that it might have instead indicated the very opposite: that her pre-debate internal polls had shown the race was even or even had Trump leading and thus she still needed a second shot at derailing him, given her own team was not sure her single and transitory debate favorability would translate into any real lead.

The Debate Reset

Then in a day or two, other and far more significant realities emerged, resetting the debate—like a first date’s favorable first impression beginning to sour a day later upon further reflection.

As the debate clips were endlessly replayed on television, radio, and the blogosphere over the ensuing week, few, if any, favorable Harris soundbites popped up.

Harris, remember, was a veritable political unknown who was running a stealth campaign of media avoidance and running out the clock.

She had never really answered any questions addressed to her in the campaign. And in the debate, she presented her nothingness in confident fashion. But she ignored and snubbed both the toadish moderators and Trump at every turn.

Yet the public had tuned in only to receive just three answers from her that she had never previously offered them since her July anointment:

1. Why are you flipping—temporarily or permanently?—on almost every issue from your past positions?

2. If you are the candidate of change, why did you and President Biden as incumbents not make these changes the last three years—or at least promise now to make them in the next four months of your remaining tenures?

3. And what exactly will be your policies as president and the details of their proposed implementation?

Every time these questions in the debate were either stumbled upon by the moderators or demanded by Trump, Harris evaded by plugging in her memorized, smiley, and stonewalling non-answers.

Even leftist media outlets could not find video clips that would show a dominant Harris mastering any of these questions.

Furthermore, in the recycled visuals of the campaign, when Trump blustered and ranted, viewers now noticed that Harris had deliberately turned to him in scripted posturing. She pantomimed as if she were prepped by Hollywood actors—not just on memorizing canned trivialities but also giving fake moves and poses.

At times, Harris was a Rodin-like “Thinker,” looking contemplative with a strutting chin and propping it up with a closed hand. At times, with a wink-and-nod, she privately communicated to the audience their supposedly shared exasperation at her outrageous opponent. And at times she rolled her eyes, batted her eyelids, raised her eyebrows, and lip-synched her cynical disdain to 67 million viewers.

The net result?

The longer the debate was discussed, the more the far larger audience who had not watched the debate heard about it from friends or saw regurgitated media takes, so all the more the public came away thinking Harris was certainly slick and smooth, but otherwise empty, shallow, and smug.

And the more they saw clips of the scowling, snarling, and raving Trump, all the more they heard him blast an unresponsive Harris for the border, crime, the economy, and foreign policy—precisely the issues about which she was now failing to offer any of studied expertise.

The result was Trump, albeit in sometimes obnoxious fashion, reassured the country he could repeat what he did in 2017-21, while Harris confidently and professionally offered them little but sugary bios and platitudes.

Post Debate Meltdowns

After the debate, a now cocky Harris forgot her directions and thus only confirmed her pre-debate no-no’s. So, at a post-debate rally, the recidivist Harris reverted to what her handlers had told her was taboo: cackling and word salads.

In her first solo media interview in over 50 days with a preselected, left-wing local Philadelphia TV anchorman, Brian Taff, Harris actually plugged in her exact memorized debate riffs from a few nights earlier—even when they had nothing to do with the questions Taff asked.

When Harris realized that she could not answer a single one of his questions in the brief 10-minute softball interview, then, in deer-in-the-headlights fashion, she simply smiled, hand gestured, giggled, and sought refuge in her accustomed platitudes and circularities.

The net result was again reminding viewers of her debate inanity a few days earlier.

Yes, Harris has a good memory to recite prepped banalities and to bait and smear opponents while keeping cool with the help of moderators.

But otherwise, she shows no ability to think or speak on her feet—and zero knowledge of the key challenges facing any president.

The Immoderators

It was bad enough that the moderators intervened in the debate—and only on one side—to fact-check. But their fact-checks on at least three of their five occasions themselves needed to be fact-checked for mistakes, especially as the post-debate furor rose.

Moderator Linsey Davis went after Trump for his accurate claim that partial-birth abortions and the killing of a baby as it leaves the birth canal were legal.

Or as Ms. Fact-Checker arrogantly put it, “There is no state where it is legal in this country to kill a baby after it’s born.”

That was not true.

At least six states make no restrictions of any kind on abortion, and thus, admittedly, on rare occasions, infants can be terminated who leave the birth canal.

Protection to ensure that such deaths never happen was vetoed by Democrats in Congress. Worse still, Harris’s own running mate Tim Walz as governor stopped Minnesota state legislation that would have outlawed the killing of an infant delivered viable and alive during or after an abortion procedure.

The moderators also fact-checked Trump’s assertion that crime was higher under Biden Harris than during his tenure and his allegation that many large cities do not fully or timely report crime statistics to federal tabulators.

Yet Trump was right on both counts. And only days later, the nation was reminded of just that when the Biden-Harris Department of Justice released recent crime statistics showing crime is still elevated—and still quite higher than when Biden-Harris took office.

The post-debate outrage further increased. It was further remembered that the two fact-checkers sat mum while Harris spun her own whoppers: that no military personnel were posted abroad in combat zones (just ask those often attacked in bases in Syria and Iraq, in Africa, or on patrol in the Red Sea).

And the two partisans kept silent when Harris repeated the long-ago fact-checked lies about Charlotteville, “bloodbath,” Project 2025, and Trump’s supposed support for a federal abortion ban.

Journalists after the debate tried to rescue Harris by jumping on Trump for other supposed lies, such as alleging Harris had supported government-provided transgendered conversion treatments for illegal aliens and prisoners. But then, post-debate, Harris’s own prior written endorsements for just that appeared.

While Harris’s campaign and liberal influencers were claiming that the moderators were not fact-checkers, one of the two, Linsey Davis, admitted she was not only a proud fact-checker, but along with her co-moderator David Muir had become one.

The reason was because of ABC’s desire to not let Trump supposedly promulgate falsehoods as he had in Joe Biden’s disastrous and career-ending June debate.

ABC apparently felt the earlier CNN moderators on that occasion were seen as too neutral and that being disinterested was a bad thing. Instead, in the Muir/Davis warped view, Biden lost that debate not because of his visible dementia but supposedly due to Trump’s exaggerations (which Biden himself matched if not exceeded).

In other words, Davis inadvertently admitted that after Democratic nominee Biden had crashed his career in a debate with Trump, ABC would now correct CNN’s supposed laxity in being too disinterested.

So, ABC’s moderators would become actively involved in the debate—and did so as the debate postmortem showed in clear partisan fashion.

Translated? One could take the Davis confession to mean the Democratic-Media fusion lost one debate by playing by traditional debate rules of moderator non-interference - and learned from that loss never to be so fair again.

Debate Incest?

The post-debate detritus mounted.

Senior Disney executive Dana Walden—who helps oversee ABC—is known as one of Harris’s “extraordinary friends” and, as reported, has been for at least 30 years. Their respective husbands have been close pals for even longer. Walden has been a steady contributor to Harris’s state and federal campaigns for over twenty years.

And it was disclosed that Harris and moderator Davis were national sorority sisters, a connection that sounded terrible, but after a fair debate, no one would have known what to make of it.

So, in normal times, no one would have noticed these conflicts of interest. After all, in the incestuous corporate/politics/media ecosystem of the bicoastal left, everyone either went to school, knows, does business with and profits from, dates, or is married to everyone else.

But given the clear bias of ABC in the post-debate environment, these relationships only further tainted the debate’s credibility.

Prairie-fire Madness

As the embarrassments of Harris’s debate and her post-debate evasions became better known, the moderators’ bias more fully exposed, the incest of ABC aired, and the lack of a debate “victory” bounce acknowledged, the irate right-wing blogosphere struck back.

On the rationale that if the left-wing network had “rigged” the debate and the moderators tipped the scales, then it too would reply in like kind. The result was a barrage of post-debate rumors, conspiracies, and false revelations—the discredited fact-checkers be damned.

Within days, fables floated by bloggers and often Trump himself that Harris was wearing high-tech receiver-earrings to facilitate stealthy prompts and directions from her off-stage handlers. Other rumors spread that her calmness was only a symptom that she had been given the debate questions in advance, or so an anonymous source claimed. Trump and his supporters then insisted that he was widely recognized by the public as the “winner” of the debate.

No evidence has yet emerged to prove any of these allegations.

Harris was likely wearing earrings that only remotely looked like a brand that doubles as a receiver.

There is no proof, at least yet from ABC or the Harris campaign, that Harris, in Donna Brazile/Hillary Clinton/CNN fashion of old, had received either the topics or the general outlines of the debate questions in advance.

And the polls uniformly really did show that Trump was felt by the public to have lost the debate—even though Harris had not really profited much from it.

But what was missed by the left’s outrage over the swirling rumors of conspiracies was that its own behavior had seeded such hysterias.

When moderators are not just biased but proudly explain why they are biased, and when such favoritism does demonstrably warp a presidential debate, then those on their receiving end naturally fire back with conspiracies of their own.

An interesting question arises over which is worse: the founded and proven conspiracy of the moderators in undisclosed but preplanned determination to hammer only Trump, or the frenzied reaction to believe fables consistent with the demonstrable bias of ABC and its moderators’ intention to warp the debate?

The Way Not Forward?

What is the result of this debate mess?

No sane conservative will or should ever do another national debate on any ABC venue.

If they were wise, Republicans should never agree to any televised debate moderated by ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR, or CNN again, given the history of liberal moderator bias. The names of Donna Brazile, Candy Crowley, David Muir, and Linsey Davis should serve as sufficient warnings.

If the presidential candidates still insist on debating their opponents, they then should agree only to the classical rules of debating—and with only mute timekeepers present instead of loud-mouth, egocentric moderators in the following fashion:

• An opening 5-minute statement;

• A 3-minute rebuttal of opponent’s similar statement;

• A 2-minute rebuttal of the rebuttal;

• All to be repeated over eight or nine topics in a 90-minute debate, with mouth-shut timekeepers keeping each candidate within his time limits.

So, no more of these televised travesties, even when, as in this case, they boomerang on their fixers.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Beep, Beep!

“Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap.”

- Brandon Smith

This time, the shooter lives to do some ‘splainin’. Do you wonder if he might get around to ‘splainin’ his role with the shady non-governmental orgs (NGOs) supported by the CIA who enabled his travels to Ukraine and his efforts there recruiting global mutts to fight for the Nazi-ish Azov Battalion? Perhaps he might rat-out actual government officials who assisted him in his colorful misadventures? As Ed Snowden remarked on “X”, wannabe Trump assassin Ryan Routh has “something of an Oswald vibe” — meaning, well-groomed by the intel boys, to be used as required.

Perhaps we’ll find out — if nothing fatal happens to befall Mr. Routh while in custody — how exactly he learned Mr. Trump would be on the links that afternoon? The candidate’s round of golf that day was supposedly a snap decision known only amongst his innermost circle. Or how did Mr. Routh figure out the most advantageous fairway to lay at for a clear shot?

The FBI is on the case, you may be reassured to know.

Things political are speeding up with the autumnal quickening. The blob is truly and deeply a’fright. So many blobsters will be liable to pay for their multitudinous crimes against the people of this country if Mr. Trump squeaks back into power that such a future is unthinkable to them. And yet, nothing has worked to deactivate this. . . this golden golem stalking the land. Nothing to show for the immense catalog of lawfare cases concocted to drain his wealth and stuff him into a prison cell — and astounding how amateurish they all were! Engoron and Merchan, two boobies hatched out of Judicial Error Central. Fani Willis, a walking-talking banana peel! Merrick Garland, saving democracy one abuse of power at a time!

The Butler, PA, head-shot op came awfully close to eliminating their, uh, problem, but no cigar. The Palm Beach golf course ambush had a Peter Sellers vibe, wouldn’t you agree? With the rifle muzzle poking through the shrubbery behind a fence. What next? A pizza with pepperoni, mushrooms, and cyanide? Maybe try to drop an anvil on Mr. Trump’s head from a passing airplane?

(Beep-beep. . . woosh!)

Somebody do something!!! The blob is shrieking to its minions from the sub-basement bunkers at Langley to the salons of Georgetown, to the US Embassy in Ukraine. Well, there’s always World War Three! And it looks like just such a romp is about to be instigated. You may have seen the photo last week of “Joe Biden” meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at a big conference table, talking-up a plan to give Ukraine the green light to rain long-range missiles deep into Russia. Meaning, let NATO technicians work the targeting console to send US or British made rockets any old place over there? Like, Red Square? Or the Winter Palace, St. Petersburg? Find an actual Ukrainian to push the launch button.

How is that not a direct attack on Russia by NATO? Well, of course it is exactly that. Russia’s chief executive, Mr. Putin, clarified it for the Globalist Neocon cohort infesting NATO that such an action would bring. . . “consequences.” That is a word the Neocons are no longer acquainted with; it has been such a long time since they’ve crossed its path, like its boon companion, “truth,” also missing-in-action these days. And, to be fair, Mr. Putin did not specify what the consequences might be, not even a simple metaphor like a mushroom cloud, or an ashtray.

How did they even get “Joe Biden” off the beach for that photo op? It is understood by everyone over ten-years-old in America that “JB” is not available for duty anymore. The “out-to-lunch” sign hangs permanently on the doorknob of the Oval Office now. The USA does not have a functioning chief-of-state for the first time in 235 years. After 2021, some sort of unelected, informal Politburu that self-assembled in the White House, like a clot from a Covid Vaccine shot, is running our affairs. Maybe Kamala Harris has a clue who is in that outfit. Or somebody in the news median could ask her (if she ever gets around to holding an actual news conference, where the questions are not previewed or scripted.) Anyone dare ask?

Kamala Harris is strangely missing from the front page of The New York Times this morning.

Is that a little ominous?

The debate is behind her. There will not be another, apparently. There is nothing about her schedule on the official campaign website. Has she entered fade-away mode? Is it all over now except for the ballot harvesting and the, uh, little adjustments to the Dominion vote-counting machines? Has the drinking started again?

In what could be an effort to legitimize its ongoing occupation of southern Russian territory, the Ukrainian government has issued formal invitations for the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to come to the Kursk region and verify the situation on the ground.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha revealed the request on Monday, saying it has been issued for the international organizations to "prove [Ukraine’s] adherence to international humanitarian law".

The Kremlin has accused the invading Ukraine forces, which have held territory since Aug.6th, of committing atrocities and abuses against civilians.

The Zelensky government still says its forces control some 100 settlements on the Russian side near the border, but days ago also acknowledged there is a large Russian counteroffensive underway.

Sybiha has claimed Ukraine forces are overseeing "humanitarian assistance" and "safe passage" to Russian civilians still in the Kursk region.

The UN and Red Cross have yet to issue formal response to Ukraine's request for them to send teams to assess the situation; however, Moscow has slammed it as a provocation.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blasted the invitations as a "pure provocation" but also said he expects "a sober assessment" from the international bodies.

Already, Russia has issued legal cases against Western journalists who have crossed into Kursk while embedded with the Ukrainian army. This includes a CNN team and some European correspondents.

Russia sees any and all international presence on its territory as a violation of Russian law and as part of an 'illegal' occupation.

Yesterday, while on a visit to our warriors in the Sumy region, I instructed @MFA_Ukraine to officially invite the UN and ICRC to join humanitarian efforts in the Kursk region. Ukraine is ready to facilitate their work and prove its adherence to international humanitarian law.

— Andrii Sybiha ???? (@andrii_sybiha) September 16, 2024

From Ukraine's perspective the Kursk operation is a legitimate tit-for-tat invasion, however risky and sure to fail it remains. Kiev's hope is that Russia is forced to divert manpower from Ukraine's east, where the front lines of fighting are, to Kursk.

But that doesn't appear to have happened yet on any kind of large scale. Instead, President Putin appears to be patiently waiting while Ukraine's own manpower and resources continue to be depleted both in Donetzk and Kursk.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

Martin County Sheriff Will Snyder suggested there may be an “ominous” wider “conspiracy” at play regarding yesterday’s suspect in the attempted assassination of Trump given that the gunman appeared to know Trump’s private schedule.

Ryan Wesley Routh appeared to know that Trump was playing golf at a Florida resort despite this not being public knowledge and the decision to play being last minute.

“To my knowledge does he have any ties to Martin County? The answer is no…I think what we’re finding out is he’s not from this area, which of course raises the bigger question is how does a guy from not here get all the way to Trump International, realize that the former president of the United States is golfing and is able to get a rifle in that vicinity,” commented Snyder.

“Is this guy part of a conspiracy? Is he a lone gunman? If he’s a lone gunman, President Trump is that much safer because we have him. But if he’s part of a conspiracy then this whole thing really takes on a very ominous tone,” added the Sheriff.

Former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker also told Newsweek that Routh appeared to have insider knowledge of the former president’s movements.

JUST IN: Martin County Sheriff Will Snyder suggests would-be Trump assass*n Ryan Routh could be part of a bigger conspiracy during a press conference.

The comments mirror those made by former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker.

Reporter: Does Ryan Routh have any ties to… pic.twitter.com/nXBQAFyI3x

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2024

“The biggest question to answer is: ‘How did the would-be assassin know to be at that location at that time?'” he said.

“There are only three possible answers:

He guessed and got very lucky; he conducted surveillance on Trump and followed him to the golf course or he had inside information about Trump’s schedule.”

Bodycam footage released by the Sheriff’s office shows Routh, who reportedly was hanging around the golf course for 12 hours, being apprehended.

BREAKING: Bodycam footage of Ryan Wesley Routh's arrest has been released.

Routh was reportedly on the golf course for 12 hours leading up to the incident.

Martin County Sheriff Will Snyder suggested on Monday that Routh could be part of a conspiracy.

"How does a guy from not… pic.twitter.com/RWSjP3B411

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2024

Meanwhile, the legacy media is still claiming that Routh’s politics are “unclear,” despite him literally having a Biden/Harris sticker on his truck.

BREAKING: Ryan Routh had a Biden-Harris bumper sticker on his truck pic.twitter.com/7P1Y9tP6Uq

— Jack Poso ???? (@JackPosobiec) September 16, 2024

The media right now ?? pic.twitter.com/l0i7TPbxs3

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) September 16, 2024

- https://t.co/iPweR4QVRG pic.twitter.com/pZQt0NZSIR

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) September 16, 2024

"Unclear political ideology" https://t.co/nbuI2mni8B pic.twitter.com/NHL6B5sJe0

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 16, 2024

As we highlight in the video below, there are already a ton of unanswered questions surrounding the assassination attempt, although the shooter’s political leanings clearly isn’t one of them.

* * *

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.

"This is mastery," says @Overton in a post on X, "The perfect articulation of what is currently transpiring in America."

In just over three brief minutes, Vivek Ramaswamy delivered what might be the most incisive explanation of the forces shaping the 2024 election and what Americans are truly facing.

"You hear a lot of fellow Republicans refer to Kamala Harris as a far-left ideologue or a Marxist or a communist. You won't generally hear me levelling that critique against her because I think it gives her too much credit."

"Kamala Harris isn't ideological particularly. I think last night [the debate] demonstrated this too."

Ramaswamy argues that the real adversary is not a singular candidate, but rather a pervasive interconnected system;

"We're not even up against a candidate. We're up against a machine. It's a perverted upside down version, hellish version of the San Antonio Spurs under Gregg Popovich or something like that in the sphere of American politics."

"You could replace the individual person who's playing in the position, but it's the machine that ultimately achieves its objective, and that's what's really going on in this race."

"This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. Not quite. It's not about Black vs. White. It's not about man vs. woman. The media, the powers that be will try to train you. Divide and conquer. Pit groups against one another. Identity politics. Vote bank politics. Don't fall for that trick."

According to Ramaswamy, the true divide is between the managerial class and everyday citizens.

"It is about the managerial class, the bureaucratic class and the everyday citizen. That's the real divide in this country."

"You've seen many former Democrats, even iconoclastic Democrats that have criticized candidate like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, even from a progressive vantage point, now shifting over to support Donald Trump."

"So," Ramaswamy asks (and answers): "what's going on there?"

"I think it is evidence of the fact of the real divide is not really between the traditional Republican and the Democrat, but between this managerial class, the people who were never elected to exercise political power."

"Be they in the media, be they in certain parts of the corporate capture machine or especially be they in the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who are writing more laws and setting more policies than even Congress which was elected to actually carry out that function, that's who's actually running the country."

The clear-speaking and clear-thinking tech executive turned political operative summed it all up perfectly:

"It's not Joe Biden - it's not even really Kamala Harris, it's not their ideology because I don't think they have one."

"It is the permanent state."

"The fourth branch of government."

"The leviathan."

"The swamp."

"The managerial class."

"The committee class."

"The bureaucrats."

"That's who's running the show today. And that's what we're really up against. We're not just running to defeat a candidate, we are running to dismantle a system."

And that's why Ramaswamy says we need Donald Trump...

"That's what Donald Trump meant the first time around when he said he wanted to go in there and drain the swamp, and I think this time more than ever, he has the toolkit to actually do it."

Watch Vivek's 'drop the mic' moment in full below:

WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy Delivers The Greatest Breakdown of the 2024 Election in Under Three Minutes — 'We Are Running to Dismantle a System' | @VivekGRamaswamy

This is mastery. The perfect articulation of what is currently transpiring in America.

Vivek Ramaswamy just delivered… pic.twitter.com/LsPHttvnZM

— Overton (@overton_news) September 14, 2024

Hedge funds and other asset managers have never been more pessimistic about the outlook for petroleum prices, as signs multiply that the major industrial economies are losing momentum according to energy analyst John Kemp. Investors have also concluded Saudi Arabia and its OPEC+ allies have run out of options and either cannot or will not restrict their own production further to offset the slowdown in consumption growth and slide in prices.

Hedge funds and other money managers sold the equivalent of 128 million barrels in the six most important futures and options contracts over the seven days ending on September 10. Fund managers have sold petroleum in eight of the most recent ten weeks, cutting their combined position by a total of 558 million barrels since the start of July.

And for the first time on record, funds held a net short position of 34 million barrels down from a net long position of 524 million barrels on July 2.

The most recent week saw heavy sales across the board, led by Brent (-54 million barrels), but including NYMEX and ICE WTI (-27 million), European gas oil (-20 million), U.S. diesel (-15 million) and U.S. gasoline (-11 million). 

Fund managers have sold Brent in seven of the most recent nine weeks, slashing their position by a total of 213 million barrels since July 9.  For the first time on record, funds held a net short position in Brent of 13 million barrels down from a net long position of 200 million nine weeks earlier.

 
Fund managers also held a record net short position of 48 million barrels in European gas oil and a near-record net short position of 39 million barrels in U.S. diesel.

Even in WTI and gasoline, where sentiment was not quite as gloomy, positions were only a few million barrels above record lows.

In the premier NYMEX WTI contract, fund managers have boosted short positions by a total of 61 million barrels in the last four weeks.

Bearish petroleum positions have become very crowded and the accumulation of short positions is creating conditions for a sharp jump in prices if and when the news flow becomes less negative.

For now, however, investors are focused on the limited options available to OPEC? to counter the deteriorating economic outlook.

DEPTHS OF DESPAIR

Investors are extraordinarily pessimistic even though benchmark Brent futures prices have already fallen to their lowest in real terms since early 2021.

After adjusting for inflation, crude prices have retreated to levels last seen when the major economies were still in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic and the first successful vaccines had only recently been announced.

Inflation-adjusted Brent prices have averaged $72 per barrel so far in September, putting them in the 35th percentile for all months since the turn of the century, down from a recent high of $90 (57th percentile) in April.

The price slide is sending an increasingly strong signal about the need for a further deceleration in production growth to match the deteriorating macroeconomic environment and worsening outlook for consumption.

Since October 2022, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC? partners have announced production cuts totalling 5.66 million barrels per day (b/d) to reduce excess inventories and drive prices higher.

Recently the group has been trying to unwind some of those cuts but has been forced to postpone planned output increases by the slowdown in consumption and renewed slump in prices.

Investors have concluded the group does not have an appetite to cut production further in the short or medium term.

The burden of adjustment must therefore fall on rival producers in the United States, Brazil, Canada and Guyana, which have accounted for nearly all output growth in recent years

Prices will decline until they enforce a further slowdown in drilling and production growth by U.S. shale producers, the most price-sensitive suppliers in the short term.

U.S. NATURAL GAS

Investors are cautiously building a bullish position in U.S. natural gas as ultra-low prices and record consumption by gas-fired generators whittle away excess inventories inherited from the exceptionally mild winter of 2023/24.

Hedge funds purchased the equivalent of 192 billion cubic feet (bcf) in the two major futures and options contracts tied to prices at Henry Hub in Louisiana over the seven days ending on September 10.

Funds have purchased a total of 290 bcf over the last two weeks taking their net long position to 507 bcf (45th percentile for all weeks since 2010) though the position is still far below the recent high of 1,170 bcf (60th percentile) in mid-June.

Inventories have been normalising rapidly as ultra-low prices have encouraged maximum consumption by power generators in the last stages of the summer airconditioning season.

Working inventories increased by a total of just 188 bcf over the nine weeks ending on September 6, the smallest seasonal accumulation for more than a decade, and less than half the average of 441 bcf in the past ten years.

As a result, in early September stocks were still high but back within the normal range of ± 1 standard deviations away from the average for the first time since early February.

With the main airconditioning season almost over, inventories will soon start rising faster, and are likely still to be above average when the main winter heating season starts on November 1.

But the surplus will be much smaller than a few months ago, and prices have begun to climb, reflecting the more balanced outlook for winter 2024/25.

By Benjamin Picton, Senior strategist at Rabobank

Just when you thought that the US election couldn’t get any more nuts, we’re onto Trump assassination attempt #2. The FBI detained suspect Ryan Routh, a 58-year-old Hawaiian, who allegedly pointed an AK-47 at the former President while he was playing a round of golf in Florida. The Secret Service is reported to have fired shots at the suspect before he fled the scene in an SUV. Trump is reportedly unharmed.

After the first attempt on Trump’s life back in July, the former President saw a significant improvement in his polling numbers. The media half-life on that assassination attempt was remarkably short given the gravity of its implications, but Joe Biden quit the race just over a week later as poll pressure and Biden’s poor performance in the June debate combined to convince senior Democrats that switching horses mid-stream might be the least-worst alternative.

This time the shoe might be on the other foot. Most commentators suggest that Trump lost the recent debate against Kamala Harris, but Harris certainly didn’t deliver a knockout blow. Harris appeared sharper and mostly avoided her trademark word salads, but the cut-through moment of the debate might have been Trump’s “they’re eating the dogs; they’re eating the cats.” If that’s the only thing that low-engagement voters who care about animal welfare remember, it might be advantage Trump.

Market reaction to assassination attempt #2 is minimal. The DXY index is slightly lower in early trade, high-beta currencies like the AUD and NZD are marginally higher, crude oil is up smalls and Asian stock indices have mostly opened a little lower (with the exception of the ASX200). The message seems to be that financial markets have quickly become desensitized to near-misses for Presidential candidates, despite genuinely paradigm-shifting economic realignment being on the ballot in this election.

On that score, Trump added to his policy platform over the weekend by pledging to eliminate income taxes on overtime pay should he be successful in regaining the Presidency. This comes on top of a prior commitment to remove income tax on tips (a pledge that the Harris campaign has also adopted), a pledge to remove taxes on social security benefits, the planned extension of the 2017 tax cuts and a proposed cut to the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Trump’s platform is aimed squarely at the American middle and working classes, with universal tariffs on imports the key revenue measure proposed to make up for (some) of the shortfall in the tax take, while also shielding American workers from competing with cheap imports and immigrant labor.

It has long been Rabobank’s house view that Trump’s economic platform is likely to induce a domestic inflationary boom, with attendant second-round effects internationally as jurisdictions like the EU, China and others seek to protect their own industry via protective tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The Harris platform is less inflationary (involving higher taxes on employment income, capital income and corporate profits), but don’t make the mistake of thinking that this means she represents a shot at fiscal conservatism. There is no deficit hawk in this race.

That makes life hard for Jerome Powell and his colleagues at the US Federal Reserve, who will almost certainly begin cutting the Fed Funds rate this week. The perception that a cut is a fait accompli means that the size of the cut is the only matter of debate at this week’s meeting. This time last week the futures market had ~33bps cut priced into the Fed Funds rate for September. That fell to ~29bps following the publication of the August CPI report on Wednesday as the core reading printed 1-tick higher than expected on a month-on-month basis.

Market pricing has since shot up to a cut of ~66bps following the publication of an article in the Wall Street Journal by Fed whisperer Nick Timiraos which suggested that inflation data might be sufficiently benign - and the starting point for Fed Funds sufficiently restrictive - for the FOMC to deliver a double-sized cut first up. This view is motivated by the Fed’s recent shift in focus from inflation to unemployment, and comments from Powell that further softening in the labor market would not be welcomed. Gold prices seem to have sensed the theme and are rallying to fresh all-time highs this morning.

Later this week we will also see labor market data for Australia. The RBA has been an something of an outlier for central banks recently as it admonishes markets not to expect a rate cut this side of Christmas. The local commentariat remains in a state of disbelief (despite briskly rising house prices, stock prices near all-time highs, tightening credit spreads, a fiscal stance shifting rapidly from restrictive to accommodative, accelerating private credit growth, low productivity growth, a low savings rate and stubborn core inflation) as rate cuts are an article of faith Down Under. The futures market is also ascribing little credibility to the RBA’s protestations, pricing in a 90% chance of a rate cut by December. Former RBA Governor Lowe’s wildly wrong “no rate rise until 2024 at the earliest” forward guidance lives long in the memory of traders who would also be looking at falling commodity prices and grim China data over the weekend as they place bets on earlier easing.

The RBA’s Chief Economist Sarah Hunter gave a speech last week unpacking the RBA’s view that the Aussie labor market remains tight (despite recent softening) and that the unemployment rate is still below estimates of the ‘full-employment’ level. That tightness in the labour market also feeds into the RBA’s view that Australia still has a positive output gap (aggregate demand exceeding aggregate supply), whereas peer economies who hiked rates further are now experiencing excess capacity and are beginning to cut.

Hunter’s RBA colleague Brad Jones will be speaking on Wednesday. He is responsible for financial stability and Governor Michele Bullock has recently hinted that he might unpack some good news about the resilience of Aussie households and business in the face of the recent hiking cycle. Could the Hunter and Jones double act be a one-two punch to knock out hopes of an Aussie rate cut before Christmas?

Perhaps the most interesting angle to attempted Trump assassin Ryan Routh's recent history in his Ukraine connection. We documented that when he went to Ukraine to recruit for its International Legion in 2022 he was a Western mainstream media darling for a time, having been quoted on behalf of the cause to get more foreign fighters to throw into the battle against Russia by a who's who of major media sources from FT to Newsweek to the NY Times.

But when he arrived in Ukraine, according to these media reports, the 58-year old Routh himself was considered too old to fight alongside the Ukrainian army. "So plan B," Routh described to one outlet, "was to come to Kiev and promote the idea of many others coming to join the International Legion. We need thousands of people here to fight alongside Ukrainians." 

"There are about 190 countries on our planet, and if the governments are not officially sending soldiers here, then we civilians should pick up this torch and make it happen," he described. He had told Newsweek in a video interview from Ukraine that the war with Russia was as simple as "good vs. evil" and essentially the same as good guys and bad guys in the Hollywood movies Americans grew up with. It was not a gray conflict, he described, but "black and white".

In March of 2022, just a month into the Russian invasion, he tweeted that everyone around the globe should be willing to volunteer and "fight and die" in Ukraine. Still, much of his time was reportedly spent in a hotel room in the far western city of Lviv.

Among the more bizarre aspects to his campaigning on behalf of the Ukrainian military's foreign legion were his efforts to recruit US-trained Afghan special soldiers to go to Ukraine's front lines. The initiative appeared so large in scale (given Routh was seeking to transfer hundreds, or even thousands, of Afghan fighters - according to his words) - that one commentator questions in light of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump: "Who was he working with in the US government that was allowing him to do this?"

In a 2023 interview with the NY Times Routh openly displayed his proclivity toward violent acts by threatening to shoot his critics, and the Times featured the quote almost as if lionizing his commitment to defending Ukraine:

In a telephone interview with The New York Times in 2023, when Mr. Routh was in Washington, he spoke with the self-assuredness of a seasoned diplomat who thought his plans to support Ukraine’s war effort were sure to succeed. But he appeared to have little patience for anyone who got in his way. When an American foreign fighter seemed to talk down to him in a Facebook message he shared with The New York Times, Mr. Routh said, "he needs to be shot."

There needs to be a full investigation of all the Washington officials and reporters the second would-be Trump assassin has interacted with over the last four years, including Malcom Nance, the entire Vindman clan, and everyone associated with the Helsinki Commission. pic.twitter.com/JErwzeSIzu

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 16, 2024

He has received the media attention also apparently as head of the International Volunteer Center in Ukraine. Importantly, he has boasted of having "had partners meeting with [Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense] every week and still have not been able to get them to agree to issue one single visa." This raises the question of the degree of his involvement with US government officials at the time.

The Times had documented that Routh planned to move volunteers "in some cases illegally, from Pakistan and Iran to Ukraine" - and claimed that many had expressed interests. He further boasted of breaking or at least bending foreign countries' laws in some cases. "We can probably purchase some passports through Pakistan, since it’s such a corrupt country," he told NY Times. He announced on Facebook at one point, "Soldiers, please do not call me. We are still trying to get Ukraine to accept Afghan soldiers and hope to have some answers in the coming months… please have patience."

He also recounted some of this experience in his self-published book, still available on Amazon, which is titled "Ukraine’s Unwinnable War: The Fatal Flaw of Democracy, World Abandonment and the Global Citizen-Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea and the end of Humanity."

As if all of this weren't shady enough, raising a myriad of questions over who in the US government knew what and when of the future would be Trump shooter, he had connections with Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Brigade (often referenced by its earlier name Azov Battalion). 

??BREAKING: Ryan Routh was featured in an AZOV propaganda video in 2022. For those unaware, AZOV is a violent, far-right Ukrainian militia with neo-Nazi origins, notorious for its anti-Russian extremism—and supported by the CIA. Yet the media stays silent. pic.twitter.com/kfHvo6vZWx

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) September 16, 2024

For a brief background review of Azov, even mainstream media has long grudgingly admitted that "in response to the neo-Nazi ideology of the group's founders, the US had banned the regiment from using American weapons in 2014." But the State Department more recently claimed it found "no evidence" that the extremist militant group has committed human rights violations or war crimes (in which case US law would prohibit providing weapons or training). This after President Volodymyr Zelensky himself has long been seen paling around with Azov commanders in public appearances.

The US State Department in June of this year announced that it finally lifted a longtime ban on giving weapons and training to Ukraine's notorious Azov Brigade (often referenced by its earlier name Azov Battalion). All the while, Azov's members have never been shy about sporting Nazi-inspired patches. 

As of Monday, and with all of these deep Ukraine connections made evident with regard to Ryan Routh, the Zelensky government as well as Azov Brigade are attempting some serious PR damage control. But in the process, their statements serve to confirm Rough's connections to the neo-Nazi outfit. According to EuroNews:

Meanwhile, a video appeared on social media linking Routh to the Azov Brigade, claiming he participated in a 2022 event to support the unit's Mariupol brigade.

The Azov Brigade said the event was a peaceful demonstration open to all and that Routh was never part of the unit.

"We would like to officially state that Ryan Wesley Routh has no connection to Azov and has never had any connection to Azov," the unit said in a statement on X.

So they are literally doing the "mostly peaceful" line. The statement from Azov Brigade continues with an attempt to blame all of this on Russia: "We believe that the spread of the narrative about the possible connection between Azov and Ryan Wesley Routh is playing along with Russian propaganda and discredits the 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine and the Security and Defense Forces of Ukraine in general," it added.

And yet, below is an example of something Rough posted to his social media. The GrayZone reported on it before it was deleted by Facebook administrators, presumably amid the FBI/Secret Service investigation: An official Ukrainian military enlistment form Routh posted on his Facebook page, which administrators have deleted.

But one thing is still indisputable based on the piles of public evidence. As geopolitical analyst Andrew Korybko says, "The suspect is a Ukro-maniac who’d been radicalized by the Mainstream Media into traveling to Kiev, trying to join the 'International Legion'..."

Korybko further points out:

There’s no way that the earlier mentioned American “deep state” had no idea who Routh was after he’d already traveled to Kiev to try to join the “International Legion” and then openly told the New York Times about his plans to recruit Afghan soldiers that fled to Pakistan as refugees. He also brazenly boasted about how he’d purchase passports for them from there to facilitate their travel to Ukraine. The FBI might soon “do the meme” and admit that he was “on their radar”, but there’s much more to it.

The Newsweek interview... certainly the mainstream didn't treat him as just some rando who happened to be passing through war-ravaged Ukraine.

#UKRAINE: Ryan Wesley Routh - who is the suspect in the assassination attempt against Donald Trump today - being interviewed, when he helped recruit foreign fighters for Ukraine ???? @DonaldJTrumpJr pic.twitter.com/VuBeRE8Aep

— Russian Market (@runews) September 15, 2024

Clearly, this doesn't look like a guy who had no connections in Ukraine, or was merely some 'war tourist' on the sidelines as the Ukrainian government and Azov would have us believe. Again the question remains: what did the US government know about this radicalized individual and when did they know it? Did he have help from US government officials in his Ukraine travels and recruitment campaign? 

Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo published a pre-order analysis report on the demand for the iPhone 16 on Sunday following last week's launch event. He found less demand for the iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max and, inversely, more demand for base models. This report contradicts the optimism of many Wall Street analysts who forecasted that new AI Siri features embedded in the new iPhone would spark an upgrade "super cycle." Apparently, that's not the case.

Kuo wrote in the report posted on Medium titled "iPhone 16 first weekend pre-order analysis: estimated total sales of about 37 million units; Pro series demand lower than expected," that his analysis was based on the "latest supply chain survey and pre-order results from Apple's official websites ... I've compiled key data on iPhone 16's first-weekend pre-orders for each model, including pre-order sales, average delivery times, and shipments before pre-order." 

Here are Kuo's top findings:

Table item explanations:

1. First Weekend pre-order sales: estimated based on each model's delivery time and production plans for that period.

2. Average delivery time: results from Apple's official websites in major iPhone markets 48 hours after pre-orders opened.

3. Shipments before pre-order: Production volume before pre-orders.

Kuo's conclusion: 

1. iPhone 16 series first-weekend pre-order sales are estimated at about 37 million units, down about 12.7% YoY from last year's iPhone 15 series first-weekend sales. The key factor is the lower-than-expected demand for the iPhone 16 Pro series.

2. The delivery times of the iPhone 16 Pro series are significantly shorter than those of the 15 Pro series. In addition to the shipment increase before the pre-order, the key is that demand is lower than expected, as evidenced by the YoY decline in first-weekend sales.

3. The significant YoY growth in shipments before pre-order for iPhone 16 Pro Max is due to improved tetraprism camera production yields and Apple's optimistic outlook for demand for this model.

4. One of the key factors for the lower-than-expected demand for the iPhone 16 Pro series is that the major selling point, Apple Intelligence, is not available at launch alongside the iPhone 16 release. Additionally, intense competition in the Chinese market continues to impact iPhone demand.

5. While first-weekend sales of the iPhone 16 Plus and standard version were up YoY, their impact on total iPhone shipments is limited.

6. Despite the YoY decline in first-weekend pre-order sales of the iPhone 16 Pro series, the supply chain's production plans are unlikely to change significantly in the near term. Apple still has opportunities to improve sales through the release of Apple Intelligence and peak season promotions (year-end holiday season in America and Europe and Double 11 in China). These factors will be key points to watch for changes in iPhone demand.

7. Strategies such as adding a tetraprism camera to the 16 Pro and maintaining iPhone 16 series pricing have had a limited help to iPhone 16 first-weekend pre-order sales. Suppose Apple Intelligence releases in 4Q24 and peak season promotions have a limited effect on iPhone 16 shipments. In that case, I believe that Apple will implement more aggressive iPhone product strategies in 2025 to stimulate market demand.

A key takeaway from the report is that consumers are more interested in the base iPhone models during this launch cycle than in the Pro series. This shift could be driven by pricing concerns in an era of elevated inflation and high interest rates, or possibly because the Pro models are too large in size. The exact reasons remain unclear.

In markets, shares of Apple are lower by more than 2%. 

Let's not forget.

The whole reason AAPL stock levitated from the $170s to $240 is because AI was supposed to spark an iPhone upgrade cycle https://t.co/gnBXPTnvJD

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 16, 2024

Wall Street's expectations for a robust iPhone upgrade cycle driven by Siri AI now face serious doubt following this report. 

The Malaysian High Court was informed last week that a staggering $2.4 million in stolen funds was diverted from the scandal-plagued 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) sovereign wealth fund, into the accounts of celebrity Kim Kardashian and musician Pharrell Williams, who is also men’s creative director at Louis Vuitton, through fugitive businessman Jho Low’s shell company, Good Star Ltd.

According to The Star, Richard Templeman, a financial fraud investigator, made the revelation as part of his testimony in the US$6.59 billion lawsuit brought by 1MDB against former Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah and former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy.

Templeman told the High Court that the investigation found, by October 25, 2011, 1MDB had transferred US$1.03 billion to Good Star for the benefit of Low.

“These funds were transferred through a series of offshore companies and used for, inter alia, the personal benefit of the co-conspirators and their relatives and associates”, he detailed in his witness statement,

Templeman explained that from the billions flowing through Good Star, $2,025,000 was moved to a Suntrust Bank account under the name of Talamasca Inc. Transactions between August 11 and November 17, 2011, were noted as “part payment for music production” and “Letter of Agreement DD 3 NOV 2011 Red Spring Investments And Talamasca/Pharrell Williams.”

“I note that publicly available information links Talamasca Inc. with musician Pharrell Williams,” Templeman was quoted as saying. However, he added, “I have no further information regarding this transfer of funds.”

The Star also reported Templeman as revealing that further sums were paid from Good Star to various entities, including US$306,000 to reality TV star Kim Kardashian and another US$100,000 to Kardashian and her then-husband Kris Humphries.

The purpose of these transactions remains “currently unknown,” according to Templeman.

Templeman, who is a director of investigations at Kroll Advisory, oversees the ongoing probe into misappropriated funds from 1MDB and SRC International Sdn Bhd, which were channelled through liquidated companies.

In May 2021, 1MDB initiated a lawsuit against Mohd Irwan and Arul Kanda for breach of trust and conspiracy, leading to a reported $1.83 billion in losses related to an investment in 1MDB-Petrosaudi Ltd, later converted into the Brazen Sky Limited investment, which 1MDB claims is recoverable from the Bridge Global Fund.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants misappropriated $3.5 billion in funds paid to Aabar Investments and US$1.265 billion paid to International Petroleum Investment Company on May 9, 2017.

Furthermore, 1MDB accuses Mohd Irwan of colluding with Arul Kanda to extend an employment agreement, resulting in a RM2,905,200 payment to Arul Kanda and additional losses to the company.

As a result, 1MDB is seeking $6.59 billion in damages from both defendants and an additional RM2.9 million from Mohd Irwan related to the employment agreement extension.

The hearing will resume this afternoon before Judicial Commissioner Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan.

Six years ago, when we first described Goldman's catastrophic foray into consumer banking, we joked that the Goldman of 2008 would be shorting the Goldman of 2018 for that ridiculous idea.

Here's Why The Goldman Of 2008 Would Be Shorting The Goldman Of 2018 https://t.co/SdcJs3i4zO

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 3, 2018

Fast forward to today when the joke is indeed on Goldman, and the bank's losses on its now defunct subprime, pardon, consumer lending unit have hit the stratosphere: according to the WSJ, Goldman is still looking to exit its partnership with Apple as losses continue to mount, and the bank is set to take a $400 million hit this quarter due to its floundering consumer business.

Speaking at a conference this week, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon explained that this $400 million hit comes from two primary things: selling off its General Motors credit card partnership and selling real estate loans. According to the report, the GM card business will be sold to Barclays, with around $2 billion in card balances.

In total, Goldman Sachs has lost a staggering $6 billion pre-tax since the beginning of 2020 “on a big chunk of its consumer-lending businesses, including its credit cards", a sad confirmation of our 2018 warning. Several factors contribute to Goldman’s massive losses associated with Apple Card, including lax underwriting standards and the resulting charge-off rates that are nearly double those of other credit cards.

In fact the latest Fed stress test revealed that Goldman - the former master of the universe - now has the second crappiest, subprimiest credit card portfolio of all US banks; only Ally bank, whose stock got absolutely crushed last week, is worse.

In the years ahead of the covid crisis, Goldman had planned to its Apple Card to bolster the bank's efforts and expand into consumer banking. However, in the intervening years, the bank - which had exactly zero previous experience with consumer lending - bank began pivoting away from consumer-financing in 2022 after accumulating staggering losses, focusing its attention on its core strength: catering to big business and ultrarich clients.

Looking toward the future, Goldman Sachs is still looking to exit its partnership with Apple, which consists of the Apple Card and Apple Card Savings Account. Currently, Apple Card credit card balances total $17 billion. The Wall Street Journal says that Goldman Sachs could face even bigger losses when it offloads the Apple partnership than the losses associated with the GM sale to Barclays.

Last November, the WSJ reported that Apple had “sent a proposal to Goldman to exit from the contract in the next roughly 12-to-15 months.” The current fate of that proposal remains unclear. It’s previously been reported that Goldman has talked to American Express and Synchrony Financial about taking over the Apple Card business.

By Denis Albert of Rmx.news,

The German government is under enormous pressure as it sinks in the polls due to mass immigration, but much of the government is staffed by radicals, many who support open borders. It has now been confirmed that taxpayers financed an anti-deportation guidebook called “Handbook Germany,” with the funds flowing from the budget of the Federal Government Commissioner for Integration, Reem Alabali-Radovan (SPD).

The information was disclosed after a request from MP Joana Cotar, who is currently unaffiliated but belonged to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) until November 2022.

?????? Germany's far-left government sinks to RECORD low in polling.

At the same time, the AfD is jumped in the polls to 19.5% just before key elections in Brandenburg.

The ruling government (Greens, SPD, FDP) is in serious trouble, mainly due to the migration crisis. pic.twitter.com/GB8sXG7F7Y

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 12, 2024

The “Handbook Germany” is a website aimed at migrants in Germany, which explains how to avoid deportation. The various tips can help extend asylum seekers’ stay in the country, potentially for years, even if the individual has criminal convictions.

One of the first tips is filing a complaint against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF).

“You cannot be deported while your complaint is pending,” the guide notes.

The site also notes that in the case of asylum applications that have been classified as inadmissible under the Dublin Regulation, the six-month transfer period begins again as soon as the asylum seeker submits an urgent application. The Solingen Islamist who killed three people during the “Festival of Diversity” actually used this legal loophole to stay in the country.

???? Germans say they're "shocked" about the mass stabbing by a Syrian national at the "Festival of Diversity" in Solingen.

But there is nothing to be shocked about. Knife crime in Germany is soaring, predominately due to mass immigration.

That is a statistical fact. pic.twitter.com/NWAxJp2gBe

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) August 28, 2024

There are also other topics on integration on the site, including a link to the page “Stop deportations. Right to stay for all.” This is a radical left-wing group in Frankfurt that opposes deportations “for political reasons.” This page even contains information about how an asylum seeker can avoid deportation once he or she is even on the plane.

The guide suggests the rejected asylum seeker should “not sit down on the plane and make it clear that they are not flying voluntarily.” Additionally, “supporters” of the rejected asylum seeker should inform “other passengers” on the plane and “urge them to protest.”

Handbook Germany also contains details about how asylum seekers can react after they have already been deported, including follow-up applications. In such a case, the handbook advises the applicant find “new” reasons for an application, including “severe war trauma” that “has not yet been recognized.” In such a case, the application may be approved.

Overall, 90 percent of the project is funded by the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). Co-financiers include Integration Commissioner Alabali-Radovan, the anti-racism commissioner, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, and the International Rescue Committee.