Fed. Judge OKs Betting on Election Results, Despite Critics’ Concerns

Editor 1
-
0
Fed. Judge OKs Betting on Election Results, Despite Critics’ Concerns

(Headline USA) People began betting Thursday on which political party would win control of Congress in the November elections after a judge’s ruling allowing the wagers—the only ones to be legally approved by a U.S. jurisdiction.

New York startup company Kalshi began taking what amounts to bets on the outcome of the November congressional elections after a judge refused to block them from doing so.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington enabled the company, at least temporarily, to offer prediction contracts across the country—essentially yes-or-no bets—on which party will win control of the Senate and the House in November.

“The Kalshi community just made history, and I know we are only getting started,” said Tarek Mansour, a co-founder of the company. “Now is finally the time to allow these markets to show the world just how powerful they are at providing signal amidst the noise, and giving us more truth about what the future holds.”

But the activity could prove short-lived. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent federal body which last year prohibited the company from offering such bets, said it would appeal the ruling as quickly as possible, citing the possibility of people trying to manipulate the election for financial purposes.

Kalshi did not say whether it intends to offer bets beyond the ones posted Thursday for congressional races, including potentially taking bets on the presidential race.

It also was not immediately clear whether sports books or online casinos would seek to offer similar political bets in light of the ruling.

Prices on Kalshi’s so-called predictive contracts varied throughout the early afternoon. As of mid-afternoon, a bet on the Republicans to win control of the Senate was priced at 76 cents; a $100 bet would pay $129. A bet on the Democrats to win control of the House was priced at 63 cents, with a $100 bet paying out $154.

Better Markets, a nonprofit organization that says it advocates for the public interest in financial markets, called the development “a dangerous move that opens the floodgates to unprecedented gambling on U.S. elections, eroding public trust in both markets and democracy.”

Contrasting his client with foreign companies who take bets from American customers on U.S. elections without U.S. government approval, Roth said Kalshi is trying to do things the right way, under government regulation.

“It invested significantly in these markets,” he said during Thursday’s hearing. “They spent millions of dollars. It would be perverse if all that investment went up in smoke.”

But Raagnee Beri, an attorney for the commission, said allowing such bets could invite malicious activities designed to influence the outcome of elections and undermine already fragile public confidence in the voting process.

“These contracts would give market participants a $100 million incentive to influence the market on the election,” she said. “There is a very severe public interest threat.”

She used the analogy of someone who has taken an investment position in corn commodities.

“Somebody puts out misinformation about a drought, that a drought is coming,” she said. “That could move the market on the price of corn. The same thing could happen here. The commission is not required to suffer the flood before building a dam.”

Thursday’s ruling will not be the last word on the case. The commission said it will appeal on an emergency basis to a Washington D.C. circuit court, and asked the judge to stay her ruling for 24 hours. But the judge declined, leaving no prohibition in place on the company offering election bets, at least in the very near term.

The company already offers yes-no positions on political topics including whether a government shutdown will happen this year, whether a new Supreme Court justice will be confirmed this year, and whether President Joe Biden’s approval rating will be above or below a certain level by the end of the year.

The Kalshi bets are technically not the first to be offered legally on U.S. elections. West Virginia permitted such bets for one hour in April 2020 before reversing itself and canceling those betting markets, deciding it had not done the proper research beforehand.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

What Happens When the Chinese Jump Back Into This Gold Bull Market?

Money Metals News Service
-
0
What Happens When the Chinese Jump Back Into This Gold Bull Market?

(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) Do you know who has been missing from the most recent gold bull run? The Chinese.

And yet, we’re still seeing gold push to record highs.

What happens when the Chinese jump back into the market with both feet?

Another Record

Gold set another new record on Thursday as investors drool over the prospect of an interest rate cut next week. 

The gold price climbed by about 1.8 percent, peaking at around $2,559 per ounce. By early Friday morning, the yellow metal was up nearly $8 at $2,577.

Investors shrugged off a small uptick in core CPI last month and a larger-than-expected increase in producer prices, anticipating that the Federal Reserve is going to cut interest rates anyway.

As one analyst told CNBC, “We are headed towards a lower interest rate environment, so gold is becoming a lot more attractive.” And even if the first cut is only 25 basis points, many analysts think we could see deeper cuts at future Fed meetings.

Another analyst pointed out increasing weakness in the labor market, telling CNBC, “The journey that they’ll embark on in cutting rates is going to go for an extended period of time.”

Gold started this bull run in mid-February, driving from just under $2,000 to nearly $2,400 in mid-April. After trading sideways for several months, the rally found new legs late last month as it became increasingly clear the Fed was prepared to surrender to inflation and begin cutting interest rates.

Where Are the Chinese?

A big factor in the gold rally last spring was buying in the East. In fact, Western investors were largely absent from the first run-up. We could see the shift of gold from the West to the East in gold imports flowing into China.

We can also see China’s appetite for gold in activity on the Shanghai Futures Exchange. 

An article in the Financial Times last spring said Chinese gold speculation “helped supercharge” the gold rally.  World Gold Council chief market strategist John Reade told the Times, “Chinese speculators have really grabbed gold by the throat.” 

A sagging Chinese stock market, along with real estate prices, pushed many investors into the safety and stability of gold.

But as prices hit record highs and regulators put some shackles on futures trading, Chinese gold demand cooled over the summer, putting the global gold rally on hold.

In May, the People’s Bank of China stopped reporting increases in its gold reserves, and physical demand slumped.

One of the factors that kept Western investors out of the gold market was high interest rates, as the Fed and other Western central banks fought price inflation. Since gold is a non-yielding asset, higher interest rates tend to create headwinds for gold.

But the situation in China was much different. In response to the economic malaise, the Chinese central bank drove interest rates to all-time lows, making gold even more attractive. 

In the spring, the Shanghai Futures Exchange tightened trading conditions, raising gold margin requirements from 10 to 12 percent and increasing the daily price limit from 9 to 11 percent. Gold globally traded sideways for several months this summer as Chinese gold demand cooled, but it began to rally again in August despite an empty Chinese chair at the table.

Gold’s recent price gains have largely been driven by factors in the West. Dollar weakness has helped gold. In fact, the latest increase in gold prices is more a function of dollar weakness than gold strength.

We’ve seen an uptick in gold demand in North American and European markets with the promise of rate cuts. (The European Central Bank has already jumped on the cutting train.) We see evidence of this renewed interest in gold with positive flows of gold into Western ETFs. 

Meanwhile, trading on the Shanghai Futures Exchange has run sideways in a relatively narrow range since the spring rally.

When Chinese gold futures break through the current resistance level, we could see another rapid run-up in the price of gold, once again supercharging the gold bull run.

Meanwhile, as it becomes clear that gold prices aren’t going to fall any time soon, physical demand in China, as well as other Asian markets, will likely pick up steam again.

These dynamics indicate that this gold bull likely still has plenty of legs.

Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for MoneyMetals.com with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.

Biden Administration Runs Biggest Deficit of the Year in August

Money Metals News Service
-
0
Biden Administration Runs Biggest Deficit of the Year in August

(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) In a year of massive deficits, the Biden administration ran the biggest deficit of the year in August.

Meanwhile, interest on the national debt eclipsed $1 trillion for the first time.

The August budget shortfall came in at $380.08 billion, according to the latest Treasury Statement. That pushed the fiscal 2024 deficit to $1.9 trillion with one month left to go. The Biden administration has already spent its way past last year’s $1.7 trillion shortfall. 

We’re seeing these huge spending levels and massive deficits despite what is supposed to be a “strong” economy. Imagine what the deficits will look like when the economy tanks.

The Treasury reported $306.54 billion in receipts in August. That was an 8.3 percent revenue increase compared to August 2023.

Last month’s year-on-year revenue increase wasn’t an anomaly. It’s happened consistently all year. To give you an idea of how well the Treasury is doing, in April, Uncle Sam ran a surplus thanks to tax day. Tax receipts came in at $776.2 billion in April, a 22 percent increase over last year.

This obliterates the idea parroted by Democrats that the deficits are because of tax cuts. The real problem is on the spending side of the ledger.

To say the Biden administration is spending like a drunken sailor would insult drunken sailors.

Last month, the federal government blew through $686.62 billion. 

That number was somewhat inflated because some September payments were pushed back into August with September 1 falling on a Sunday. That could mean a slightly lower spending total in September – maybe.

Federal spending in fiscal 2024 stands at $6.29 trillion. That’s already 2.6 percent higher than last year with a whole month of spending left.

Remember how the Biden administration promised that the [pretend] spending cuts would save “hundreds of billions” with the debt ceiling deal (aka the [misnamed] Fiscal Responsibility Act)? 

As you can see, that never happened. That should tell you something about government promises when it comes to spending. 

Don’t think I’m just picking on Biden and the Democrats. They just happen to be the ones currently driving the car toward the cliff. Things weren’t much better when Trump was at the wheel. 

Before the pandemic, the U.S. government had only run budget deficits of over $1 trillion four times — all by the Obama administration in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

The Trump administration almost hit the $1 trillion mark in 2019 and was on pace to run a trillion-dollar deficit in fiscal 2020 before the pandemic, even as the U.S. supposedly enjoyed the “best economy” ever. The economic catastrophe caused by the government’s response to COVID-19 gave policymakers an excuse to spend with no questions asked and we saw record deficits in fiscal 2020 and 2021.

This reveals the ugly truth; borrowing and spending is a bipartisan sport. No matter who is in power or what you hear about spending cuts in Washington D.C., the federal government always finds new reasons to spend more and more money. Whether it’s a disaster, an emergency, or somebody else’s war, the spending train never reaches the station.

The Interest Problem

Spiraling debt and higher interest rates are creating a double whammy that is on the verge of overwhelming the federal budget.

Last month, the U.S. government spent $92.29 billion just paying interest on the national debt. That drove the total interest expense this year over $1 trillion for the first time in history. Interest expense this year is nearly 30 percent higher than last year and makes up about 23 percent of total revenues.

Last month, the federal government spent more on interest expense than it did on National Defense ($89 billion). The only spending categories that were higher were Social Security and Medicare.

And interest expenses will only continue to climb.

Much of the debt currently on the books was financed at very low rates before the Federal Reserve started its hiking cycle. Every month, some of that super-low-yielding paper matures and has to be replaced by bonds yielding much higher rates.

Anybody who says “deficits don’t matter” is deluded.

And the only way out of this fiscal death spiral is significant spending cuts and/or major tax hikes.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for MoneyMetals.com with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.

Brutal Taylor Swift Spoof Accuses Singer of Staged Endorsement

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Brutal Taylor Swift Spoof Accuses Singer of Staged Endorsement

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Republicans on X responded to Taylor Swift’s seemingly staged endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris with a spoof video of one of Swift’s biggest hits. 

The spoof, created by Steven Crowder’s media company, parodied Swift’s 2014 hit song Shake It Off to suggest the endorsement was a farce—conveniently timed after the ABC News presidential debate.

“After the debate, I just couldn’t wait. They told me what to say. Mm-mm. Planned in every way,” the song began, mocking the lyrics of Swift’s 2014 hit from her album 1989. 

The video featured a montage of the debate, clips from the original Shake It Off music video and cable news segments.

“I want euro-level rapes, unrecognizable states. At least I’ll vote that way. Mm-mm. They told me what to say. Mm-mm,” the spoof continued, featuring the song’s signature trumpets. 

The parody then turned to Trump and cited Haiti-related scandals with the following lyrics: “I want Trump losing. Haitians barbecuing. Garfield with some cumin right outside, saying ‘That’s cat’s cooking up real nice.” 

The spoof came after Swift’s infamous endorsement of Harris, which the singer announced on her Instagram page with a photo of Swift and her Ragdoll kitten, Benjamin Button. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift)

“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos,” Swift dubiously claimed of Harris, signing off with, “Taylor Swift – Childless Cat Lady.”

Trump had warned in February that Swift endorsing then-presidential nominee Joe Biden would be surprising, considering his support for the Music Modernization Act, which he suggested benefited her.

“I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Feb. 11. 

“There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money,” Trump added.

Secret Service Honors 9/11 Terrorists w/ Victims

Dmytro "Henry" Aleksandrov
-
0
Secret Service Honors 9/11 Terrorists w/ Victims

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) On Sept. 11, 2024, the anniversary of the tragedy, the United States Secret Service accidentally honored the 19 hijackers who committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Fox News reported that the agency deleted the social media post that was made in honor of the 23rd anniversary of the tragedy, including the terrorists in the victim count.

After that, the Secret Service immediately apologized in its other post.

“The flag hanging in our headquarters is a solemn reminder of 9/11 and our mission’s purpose. A testament to freedom and sacrifice, it honors all 2,996 lives lost, including our own Master Special Officer Craig T. Miller & Special Agent in Charge Charles L. Friend,” the agency stated.

The Post Millennial reported that the number of people murdered in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has been tallied at 2,977, the number that includes victims murdered in each attacked location such as the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the crashed plane in Shanksville, Pa. In the now-deleted social media post, the agency reported the number of deaths as 2,996, a number which includes 19 terrorists responsible for the attack.

“This is a correction of an earlier version of this post. In the original post, we erroneously included the total number of deceased from the Sept 11 attacks, which included the hijackers. Our intent was to only honor the victims of that tragic day and we deeply apologize for the error,” the Secret Service wrote.

The Post Millennial reported that the recent news came after the Biden-Harris administration backtracked on an anti-American plea deal for the terrorists behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attack who are currently waiting for trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Headline USA also recently reported that the agency that became infamous for its far-left bias would be responsible for the security plan for the Jan. 6, 2025, election certification.

CNN Critiques Kamala’s Debate Evasiveness after ABC’s Kid-Glove Treatment

Contributing Author
-
0
CNN Critiques Kamala’s Debate Evasiveness after ABC’s Kid-Glove Treatment

(Headline USA) CNN’s Jake Tapper blasted Vice President Kamala Harris this week for dodging every single question asked of her during Tuesday’s debate against former President Donald Trump.

Harris might not have fallen flat on her face against Trump, Tapper said, but she was not honest about her policy positions when pressed about them.

She “punt[ed] the very first question on the economy,” he pointed out, and it “went on from there.”

Instead of answering whether she believed the economy is working for Americans today, Harris “generally reverted to talking points about a few of her policy proposals,” Tapper added. “Even Harris allies today are saying that she needs to talk more about what she will do for Americans if elected.”

Harris also dodged questions on immigration, he said.

For example, when she was asked how she might have managed the border crisis better than President Joe Biden, Harris answered, “So, I‘m the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.”

But “that wasn’t the question,” Tapper said.

Harris’s evasion strategy has not seemed to help her with independents or swing-state voters, according to recent polling.

A New York Times poll released last weekend found that 30% of undecided voters needed to know more about Harris and her agenda, compared to just 9% who said the same of Trump.

Snap polls taken immediately after Tuesday’s debate showed she failed to give those voters what they wanted. 

Hannah Reed, an independent who backed Trump in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, told NBC News after the debate that she wanted to like Harris but did not think Harris had “actual policies that are going to be effective.” 

Lynne Kelleher, who voted for Trump in 2016 and for the libertarian candidate in 2020, agreed and said Harris’s “taglines,” such as “opportunity economy” did nothing to reassure her.

Time Mag Forced to Correct Fake ‘Fact Check’ on Kamala’s Support of Sex-Changes for Illegals

Contributing Author
-
0
Time Mag Forced to Correct Fake ‘Fact Check’ on Kamala’s Support of Sex-Changes for Illegals

(Headline USA) Time magazine was forced to issue a correction this week after falsely “fact-checking” former President Donald Trump’s statement during this week’s presidential debate that Vice President Kamala Harris supported free sex-change procedures for illegal immigrants.

Trump made the remark during ABC’s debate on Tuesday, citing a list of far-left policies Harris once supported but has since walked back.

“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison,” Trump said.

Harris did, in fact, pledge to support taxpayer-funded sex-change treatments for illegal immigrants in U.S. detention facilities, according to a 2019 ACLU candidate questionnaire.

“I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained,” Harris said in the questionnaire. “Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.”

Time, however, initially reported Trump’s statement as “false.” 

After being called out by conservatives, the publication issued a correction.

“The original version of this story mischaracterized as false Donald Trump’s statement accusing Kamala Harris of supporting ‘transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison,’” said its mea culpa. “As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris filled out a questionnaire saying she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for detained immigrants.”

Harris’s support for radical policies has even taken some on the Left by surprise, with CNN expressing shock over some of her past positions.

“I mean these are things that, you know, it would be hard to think that you would come up with taxpayer-funding gender transitions for detained migrants,” CNN’s Erin Burnett commented. “And yet, as you say, [Harris did so] written and verbally.”

When pressed by CNN on whether Harris still supports such policies, the Harris campaign replied with a vague non-answer, saying, “The vice president’s positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration.”

Harris admitted, however, in a recent sit-down interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that her “values have not changed.”

Bon Jovi Prevents Bridge Jumper During Nashville Video Shoot

Jacob Bruns
-
0
Bon Jovi Prevents Bridge Jumper During Nashville Video Shoot

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) Although he may sing about being “wanted dead or alive,” pop star Jon Bon Jovi clearly has a preference between the two, according to the New York Times.

As he was filming a music video in Nashville, Tennessee, for his band’s new song, “The People’s House,” the New Jersey-born crooner reportedly talked a 62-year-old woman out jumping off a bridge.

Bon Jovi can be seen in a viral video approaching the woman after she climbed over the railing of the John Seigenthaler Pedestrian Bridge, which spans the Cumberland River linking East and West Nashville.

He and another pedestrian appear to talk to the woman for about a minute before she returns back to the safe side of the railing and gives the “Livin’ on a Prayer” singer a heartfelt hug.

Nashville’s Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement confirming the story and thanking the two good Samaritans for their help

“It takes all of us to help keep each other safe,” the Nashville PD said.

“A shout out to Jon Bon Jovi and his team for helping a woman in Nashville on the Seigenthaler Pedestrian Bridge Tuesday night.”

Appropriately, the bridge, located near the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in downtown Nashville, is named after John Seigenthaler, a journalist who prevented a man from jumping from the very spot in 1954.

Some X users praised Bon Jovi while also playing off of some of his more famous lyrics:

 

Aside from the remarkable good deed, which he performed as numerous other people walked past, Bon Jovi also runs a nonprofit called the Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation, which assists people struggling with poverty, hunger and homelessness.

Some might say he gives love a good name.

Trump Won’t Have Third Debate After ABC’s Pro-Kamala Trap

Dmytro "Henry" Aleksandrov
-
0
Trump Won’t Have Third Debate After ABC’s Pro-Kamala Trap

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) After having an explicitly biased debate with Kamala Harris on ABC News on Sept. 10, 2024, Donald Trump recently stated that he won’t agree to another debate with a far-left candidate.

“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, ‘I WANT A REMATCH.’ Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sept. 12, 2024.

Trump then remembered that his main rival in the 2024 election refused to have debates on Fox News, as well as leftist NBC News and CBS News.

“She was a no-show at the Fox debate and refused to do NBC and CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR-YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” he wrote.

The Washington Examiner reported that after Harris and ABC News “moderators” debated Trump in Philadelphia, the Harris campaign called for a second debate in a statement from Chairwoman Jen O’Malley Dillon.

“Under the bright lights, the American people got to see the choice they will face this fall at the ballot box: between moving forward with Kamala Harris or going backward with Trump. That’s what they saw tonight and what they should see at a second debate in October. Vice President Harris is ready for a second debate. Is Donald Trump?” O’Malley Dillon wrote.

One other potential reason Trump decided not to participate in another debate was the recent discovery that ABC News gave the Harris campaign sample questions before the debate.

“ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit claiming the Harris campaign was given sample questions that were ‘essentially the same questions that were given during the debate,’ as well as assurances that Trump would be ‘fact-checked’ and she would not,” Leading Report wrote.

Georgia Judge Tosses Charges Against Trump, Delivering Major Blow to Fani

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Georgia Judge Tosses Charges Against Trump, Delivering Major Blow to Fani

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) The Georgia judge presiding over the infamous indictment of President Donald Trump, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, dismissed three counts from the case, including two targeting the Republican presidential candidate. 

Judge Scott McAfee ruled that these counts should be handled in federal court, not state court, effectively blocking Willis’s vicious attempt to pursue them as a state prosecutor. 

McAfee’s ruling followed a motion by John Eastman and Shawn Tresher Still to dismiss the entire indictment based on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. They argued that the case should be heard in federal court due to its connection to a federal election. 

McAfee partially granted the motion, dismissing counts 14, 15 and 27, all related to filing false documents. 

Trump’s defense attorney, Steven Sadow, praised the decision in a statement to the press, NBC News reported.

“President Trump and his legal team in Georgia have prevailed once again,” Sadow said. “The trial court has decided that counts 15 and 27 in the indictment must be quashed/dismissed.” 

The case involves accusations by Willis against Trump and 18 others for allegedly questioning the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. 

The case is on hold while the defendants seek to have the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualify Willis, following bombshell revelations of the secret affair between Willis and Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired for the case. 

Defendants point to damning evidence suggesting that Willis awarded a taxpayer-funded contract to Wade to lead the indictment and then took several vacation trips with him, paid for by Wade using funds from the contract. 

In one of the hearings over the affair, Willis claimed she reimbursed Wade for the expenses he paid during their trips. She allegedly paid him in cash, failing to provide documentation for cash withdrawals. 

McAfee agreed that Willis’s relationship with Wade created an appearance of conflict of interest and ordered one of them to quit before the case could proceed.

Wade ultimately resigned from the case, but the defendants argue that Willis should also be disqualified.

If successful, the appeal could result in the case being dismissed. The Georgia Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments in December.

1...1,0701,0711,072...3,851Page 1,071 of 3,851