Authored by Charlotte Cuthbertson  via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Border Patrol agents in the area of El Paso, Texas, have apprehended more than 38,500 illegal immigrants in the 21 days since Oct. 1—averaging almost 13,000 per week, according to provisional Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained by The Epoch Times.

In January, agents in El Paso arrested an average of 4,500 per week.

As with the whole southern border, illegal crossings in El Paso have trended up all year; the region has become the new hotspot after the Del Rio, Texas, area for most apprehensions per month.

“If you think the lawlessness at the border and the millions illegally crashing it has been bad during Biden’s term so far, wait until the numbers keep rolling in for this FY. Already shattering records again,” the National Border Patrol Council wrote on its Twitter page on Oct. 24. The new federal fiscal year began on Oct. 1.

“We said months ago he was just getting started. And he was.”

The city of El Paso is receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to feed, house, and transport the illegal aliens once they’re released by Border Patrol.

Since May, when the city issued an emergency ordinance, it has set up a mammoth operation in conjunction with local NGOs to provide thousands of illegal immigrants with meals, hotel rooms, and help with bus or plane tickets to their chosen destination.

More than 100 city employees are working full-time to assist with the operation, and several council members have expressed concern that local projects are being delayed because of the shift in resources.

Venezuelan nationals have made up the bulk of the sudden increase in illegal crossings into El Paso since August (up to 70 percent, according to El Paso’s city manager).

In September, more than 20,000 Venezuelan nationals turned up in El Paso; during the months of July and August, border agents had apprehended 611 and 3,539 Venezuelans respectively, according to CBP data.

On Oct. 12, the Biden administration began returning Venezuelans to Mexico and promised that 24,000 will be approved to fly directly into the United States. Still, the overall illegal border crossing numbers have yet to decline.

El Paso officials said that, traditionally, many illegal aliens have family members already in the United States, which means those family members can help pay for transportation and initial costs.

However, recently, up to 50 percent of the aliens that the city is assisting have no ties in this country—making it more burdensome to provide support.

Some city council members were pushing to declare a local disaster during a meeting at the end of September as the costs went through the roof.

“Costs have risen from $55,000 a day to upwards to $250,000 a day,” City Manager Tommy Gonzalez said during the meeting.

However, Mayor Oscar Leeser said, “The White House has asked at this point not to [declare a disaster].”

Leeser said he, too, is against a disaster declaration, as is U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), and El Paso County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for confirmation of Leeser’s claim.

Leeser said a declaration is unnecessary because he’s working with the Biden administration on solutions. As the issue began to escalate, Leeser said the federal government increased its flights transporting illegal immigrants to other parts of the country—easing the drain on El Paso city resources.

Leeser said as long as the flights keep departing and the city can absorb the remaining aliens without Border Patrol having to release them onto the streets, a disaster declaration is unnecessary.

El Paso Deputy City Manager Mario D’Agostino said CBP had increased its flights of illegal aliens out of the city to up to six per day, as well as multiple charter bus trips.

“Now, instead of releasing to the streets, they’re using a lot more chartered flights and buses,” D’Agostino said during the Sept. 27 meeting.

City Manager Tommy Gonzalez said FEMA has pledged $2 million upfront to cover costs from Oct. 1, but once that runs out (potentially within two weeks), the city will need to continue dipping into its general fund before being reimbursed.

Read more here…

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The US on Wednesday announced new sanctions on Iranian officials for their alleged role in cracking down on protesters inside Iran as demonstrations and violence continue across the country.

Announcing the sanctions, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US will “continue to find ways to support” protesters inside Iran. He said the measures target 14 individuals and three entities.

The new sanctions come as negotiations between the US and Iran to revive the nuclear deal, the JCPOA, have been stalled. US officials have said the JCPOA is not their “focus” now as they look for ways to support Iranian protesters. An Israeli official told The Times of Israel on Wednesday that the US has soured on the possibility of resuming talks with Tehran.

The new sanctions hit members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iranians that work in the country’s prison system. The entities targeted by the sanctions are accused of participating in censorship and the surveillance of Iranians.

The protests were sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody, and Wednesday marked the 40th day since she died. Iran has accused the US and Israel of fomenting the protests, which Iranian officials have denounced as riots.

Iranian officials have said at least 30 security officials have been killed by demonstrators, including members of the IRGC. On Wednesday, Iranian media reported that an IRGC member was shot dead by “rioters” in the Iranian city of Malayer.

It’s not clear if the US and Israel are involved in the violence, but Israel does have a long history of carrying out covert attacks inside Iran, including assassinations. Back in May, Israel was said to be behind the killing of an IRGC colonel in Tehran and was suspected of involvement in a string of other mysterious deaths around the same time.

1. Now in their sixth week, nationwide protests in Iran continue with intensity. In the city of Mahabad–Iranian Kurdistan– thousands of protesters chant “woman, life freedom” (zhan, zhian, azadi) pic.twitter.com/9Z6gJlsErg

— Karim Sadjadpour (@ksadjadpour) October 27, 2022

The US has signaled that it’s trying to give material support to the Iranian protesters by giving them better access to the internet, which has been restricted. When asked if the US was getting involved in the protests, CIA Director William Burns said, “All I can say is we are going to continue to be strongly supportive as a government in the free flow of information.”

Russia has issued a new warning Thursday aimed at the United States at a moment Moscow-appointed officials appear to be retreating from tge southern city of Kherson as it comes under increased Ukrainian shelling. 

The Associated Press reports of the new Kremlin warning as follows, “Amid the battles, Russia issued a warning that the United States could be drawn into the conflict, adding it could target Western commercial satellites used for military purposes in support of Ukraine.”

The statement came from the deputy chief of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s arms control and nonproliferation department, Konstantin Vorontsov, who said “Quasi-civilian infrastructure could be a legitimate target for retaliation.”

It also comes soon on the heels of the question of potential Pentagon funding for Elon Musk’s Starlink systems, after SpaceX said it can’t be expected to foot the bill indefinitely.

Ukraine’s forces have called Starlink essential to its ability to repel the Russian advance, as it’s often used in frontline communications where no other comms links exist. 

According to The Moscow Times: 

Commercial satellites used by the United States to assist Ukraine in its war against Russia are “legitimate” targets for attacks, a Russian diplomat said Wednesday.

Private assets like Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet constellation, as well as Maxar and Planet Labs earth observation satellites, have proven critical in keeping Ukrainians online and piercing the fog of war.

This is not the first time the Kremlin suggested such a threat. Vorontsov had warned just last month that non-military satellites used by Ukraine “constitute indirect involvement in military conflicts” – hinting that they could eventually be targeted. 

Vorontsov didn’t mention Starlink by name in his new statement to the United Nations…

Vorontsov did not mention any specific satellite companies though Elon Musk said earlier this month that his rocket company SpaceX would continue to fund its Starlink internet service in Ukraine, citing the need for ‘good deeds’ https://t.co/9z4a3EewHZ pic.twitter.com/8y4GbIvsOo

— Reuters (@Reuters) October 27, 2022

Also on Thursday, Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova charged that Washington is pursuing “thoughtless and mad” escalation.

“The more the US is drawn into supporting the Kyiv regime on the battlefield, the more they risk provoking a direct military confrontation between the biggest nuclear powers fraught with catastrophic consequences,” said Zakharova.

As the bell tolls for the end of the first chapter of Twitter’s life as a deep state narrative-enabling machine, the firings have begun with Musk becoming ‘Chief Twit’.

Just minutes after the world’s richest man has reportedly closed the $44 billion deal, The NYTimes reports that, according to sources that declined to be identified, the Twitter executives who were fired include:

• Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive,

• Ned Segal, the chief financial officer,

• Sean Edgett, the general counsel, and

• Vijaya Gadde, the top legal and policy executive, (or censorship czar).

We suspect she was first on the list given this tweet from Musk earlier in the year…

pic.twitter.com/1CE7rjBrNH

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022

As a reminder, having been with Twitter since 2011, Gadde was the key executive in charge of ‘trust and safety, legal and public policy functions‘ – described by Politico as the company’s “moral authority.” 

Gadde holds one of the most controversial positions at Twitter: Her teams decide how to moderate content. That’s made her a target of right-wing criticism, particularly when Twitter blocked the distribution of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, in 2020. She faced a renewed wave of criticism after multiple reports confirmed she was behind the decision to ban Trump from Twitter. -Politico

In other words, Gadde is likely the exec who signed off on ZeroHedge’s February 2020 ban for speculating that Covid-19 may have emerged from a Wuhan Lab, and President Trump’s January 2021 ban in connection with the capitol riot.

And we are not surprised at the others…

In all seriousness, imagine being such an arrogant, incompetent, entitled litttle wokester that your pissy texts provoked the richest man on earth to buy your employer just so he could fire you in his first act as owner. pic.twitter.com/NjpCOB9gbM

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 28, 2022

At least one of the executives who was fired was escorted out of Twitter’s office, NYTimes reports.

Please do not feel too bad for these poor, dejected executives, as Insider reports, through “change in control” provisions in employment contracts for top leadership, they will receive a certain amount of severance and an automatic acceleration of their shares, so long as Musk fires them.

The provisions are disclosed in regulatory filings.

• Agrawal is set to receive the largest payout of $38.7 million, due largely to the entirety of his shares vesting upon his firing.

• Segal is set to receive a $25.4 million payout for getting fired.

• Gadde will leave with $12.5 million.

As we detailed earlier, over 1,100 employees have left Twitter since Musk announced his intention to buy the company back in January, with almost a third going to Google or Meta.

The figures come from a new analysis of LinkedIn data, with the report noting that other workers have moved to the likes of Pinterest, LinkedIn, Snap, and TikTok.

We suspect, as Elon warned, it’s sinking now for some…

Will we see this tomorrow?

Authored by Charles Lipson via RealClear Wire,

Two weeks before the 2022 midterms, fear of crime is second only to worries over inflation and recession. Both issues – personal security and economic security – affect voters directly. They arise every time voters ride the subway, walk down a dark street, pay the cashier at the grocery, or fill up their truck. That’s why survey after survey says they are the top issues motivating voters this November. That’s bad news for Democrats. Pollsters say Republicans hold huge advantages on the economy, inflation, and crime, the issues that matter most to voters.

Since crime is essentially a local issue, why does it hurt Democrats running for national or statewide office? Because the Democratic Party has associated itself with the notion that “social justice” and “racial equality” require fundamentally changing policing and incarceration. The problem, they say, is police, not criminals. In practice, that means Democrats, especially progressives, favor weaker law enforcement, easier conditions for bail (even for those charged with violent offenses), and less funding for police officers. That message was encapsulated in the slogans “defund the police” and “reimagine policing,” which took hold in 2020 after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis cop.

Not all Democrats embraced this self-defeating fad. Joe Biden, notably, spoke out against it. But progressives marched in lock-step, and their policies became the party’s dominant message on crime. Not just dominant, uncontested. Left-wing prosecutors ran on that message, won in city after city, and implemented it with disastrous effects. They had strong backing from state and local Democratic politicians. Pushback inside the party was tepid, for fear of alienating white progressives as well black leaders and activists.

Now Democrats are stuck with the consequences on the streets and, soon, at the ballot box. The party’s “soft on crime” image has become a political albatross, which candidates cannot readily discard. They are weighed down for two reasons. First, they hold power nationally and in almost every major city, so voters hold them responsible for bad outcomes. The party’s unwillingness to enforce basic laws and protect the public is exemplified by the porous Southern border, a deliberate policy choice by the Biden administration. The result has been an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants (some 2.4 million in the last fiscal year alone), plus a surge of deadly drugs. Mexican cartels have reaped billions in profits, five or six times as much as they made before Biden threw open the border.

Second, when the movement to defund police was at its height, no prominent national Democrats were willing to push back forcefully. That means candidates today cannot appeal to the public on these issues. None chose to follow Bill Clinton’s path during the 1992 presidential campaign, when he denounced Sister Souljah’s openly racist statements. None, including Joe Biden, were willing to become the pro-law enforcement face of the party, to denounce widespread rioting during the summer of 2020, to urge a crackdown on arsonists, looters, muggers, carjackers, and killers. Far from it. When Democrats held their nominating convention in Milwaukee that summer, they remained silent about the violence. Biden chose as his running mate a California senator who personally urged her Twitter followers to send money to a Minnesota nonprofit that helped post bail for protestors accused of breaking the law.

Voters get the point – and they don’t like it. They link the rise in crime to Democratic policies, to their unwillingness to make public safety a high priority, to their refusal to enforce the law. They don’t believe candidates who blame these problems mainly on bad policing or “systemic racism.” Voters do recognize the serious problems plaguing poor, minority communities and, for some six decades, have supported social-welfare programs to address them (with uneven results). But that doesn’t mean they accept crime, especially violent crime, whatever its social roots.

Voters are saying they want more public safety, which means more policing, not less. They don’t think their position is racist because they want fair, unbiased treatment of blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians. They don’t want to ignore persistent poverty and crime in inner cities. They want effective programs to deal with them. But they do not believe, as progressives do, that these problems are somehow due mainly to “white supremacy.” On the contrary, voters have witnessed a steep, long-term decline in those noxious attitudes.

On criminal justice issues, Americans see sharp differences between the two major political parties. They know Republicans have long favored more support for law enforcement, more funding, and more policies like “broken windows” policing, which seek to reduce crime by punishing minor offenses before the perpetrators succeed and move on to larger ones. They know Democrats have consistently opposed these policies and dismantled them in cities they govern. They can see the results for themselves.

The Democrats’ message on crime is failing for another reason: They control the cities where crime is rampant. Voters around the country see the connection, and it hurts Democrats everywhere. The pain is compounded because the party has no good answers about what to do next, aside from more spending on social services and mental health (which are badly needed) and controlling guns (which faces formidable constitutional obstacles, as well as practical obstacles since millions of people already own millions of guns).

Voters aren’t inventing their fear of crime. They see it daily on local news, followed by interviews with the victims’ anguished families. They see videos of local stores being ransacked by organized gangs – none ever arrested. They see it firsthand when they walk into Walgreens and have to ask a clerk to unlock the Plexiglas case to get a tube of toothpaste. They see it again when they walk on local streets, trying to avoid homeless camps, open-air drug markets, and discarded needles.

National data tells a similar story. Violent crime, in particular, has reached record levels. The problems are not limited to big cities like Chicago or Philadelphia or progressive bastions like Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. Small and mid-sized cities face the same problems, without the media spotlight. In 2022, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program lists the ten most dangerous cities as Little Rock, Memphis, Tacoma, Detroit, Pueblo, Cleveland, Springfield, Lansing, Kansas City, and Chattanooga. Democrats govern all of them except Chattanooga, whose mayor does not list a party affiliation. Once again, voters have no trouble making the connection.

The desire for better law enforcement became national news earlier this year when San Francisco voters recalled their uber-progressive prosecutor, Chesa Boudin. Savvy Democrats saw that as a warning. But by then, it was too late for many of them. They were locked into weak positions on crime. There wasn’t much they could do besides change the subject.

Voters don’t want to change the subject. They want to change policies. They want much better public safety, fairly administered. They are sick of virtue signaling, wishful thinking, and criminals released to repeat their offenses. That’s what they are saying to pollsters. Soon, that’s what they will say at the ballot box.

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire (emphasis ours),

President Biden walked on stage in the dark of the Howard Theatre and declared the coming midterms, then just three weeks away, “the most consequential election in our history.” Insisting that abortion was on the ballot this year, Biden promised that if Democrats kept their majorities, they would codify Roe v. Wade in federal law.

“I want to remind us all how we felt that day,” Biden told a congregation gathered by the Democratic National Committee of the Supreme Court decision to repeal Roe. “The anger, the worry, the disbelief.” He added, “If you care about the right to choose, you got to vote.”

It was a call to action from the man who is only the second Roman Catholic president in U.S. history – and America’s first and only pro-choice Catholic president. But in swing states Democrats must win if they are to preserve their Senate majority, and on the eve of the midterms, a majority of Catholic voters do not necessarily share the president’s priorities.

A new RealClear Opinion Research poll, done in concert with Catholic television network EWTN, shows that a majority of Catholic voters in six key battleground states would rather let states determine abortion policy; believe that the economy remains the most significant concern for the country; and generally favor Republican challengers and incumbents in the coming electoral contests.

Topline findings: Full polling breakdown

Those results are significant given that Catholic voters, who make up roughly one-fourth of the U.S. electorate, were an influential demographic in the last presidential election. With the Senate split 50-50, they may be positioned not just to determine who controls that body, but also to help define the next two years of Biden’s first term. Democrats currently hold the Senate only by virtue of the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris casts the deciding vote in case of a tie. If Republicans net one seat, they take control of that body and perhaps the destiny of the White House legislative agenda.

Georgia

Sen. Raphael Warnock was widely considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection this year. Allegations that challenger Herschel Walker paid for a girlfriend’s abortion, however, seemed to put Republicans on the back foot. With Election Day only two weeks away, the race is a toss-up, with Warnock leading Walker by just one percentage point in the RealClearPolitics polling average.

But recent headlines have not swayed the Catholic electorate in Georgia. Among these voters, Walker leads Warnock 64.7% to 32.7%. In the governor’s race there, they also favor incumbent Republican Brian Kemp, 67.1%, over Democrat Stacey Abrams, 31.1%.

Biden is seriously underwater among Georgia Catholics, as more than two-thirds (68%) disapprove of his performance in office while only 30% approve. An overwhelming majority, 59.6%, believe abortion should be decided by the people through their elected representatives or ballot initiatives rather than the courts. Just 6.4% say that the issue is the most important facing the country right now, compared to 67.1% who identify economic issues as their top concern.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania may prove the best chance for the Democrats to pick up a Senate seat this year. Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz currently trails Lt. Gov. John Fetterman in the RCP average by 1.3 points. And even though a majority of Catholic voters, 56.5%, don’t approve of Biden’s job performance, they favor the Republican Senate candidate by a smaller margin: 50.7% support Oz while 45.2% are backing Fetterman.

At least in the Keystone state, Catholic voters seem prepared to split the ticket. A majority support the Democrat in the race for governor: Josh Shapiro leads Republican Doug Mastriano 50.8% to 44.5% on the eve of the election.

The economy is the driving factor among Catholic voters in Pennsylvania, although abortion remains a significant factor. A majority, 60.6%, identified jobs, inflation, and rising interest rates as the top concerns facing the nation, while nearly 10% say the abortion issue is the chief challenge.

A majority of Catholics there, 55.7%, still would like to see the abortion issue handled by elected representatives and through ballot initiatives, rather than through the courts.

Arizona

This state has been viewed as a pick-up opportunity for Republicans, and Sen. Mark Kelly remains at risk there, but his challenger Blake Masters has never wrested away the lead. The Democrat has, however, seen his advantage shrink steadily. Kelly leads Masters by just 2.5 points.

Among Arizona Catholics, the race is also tight. They favor Masters by a margin of about five percentage points over Kelly, 51.4% to 46.3%. The numbers are similar in the governor’s race, where 52.5% of that electorate backs broadcaster Kari Lake over Secretary of State Katie Hobbs with 46.9%.

The president is not popular among Arizona Catholics. A clear majority, 58.5%, disapprove of the way he does his job compared to 39.5% who approve, meaning that he may turn off more Catholics than he draws to the polls.

Abortion is not a top concern for these voters. Only 7.6% identify the issue as the most important facing the nation, and 60% want abortion policy determined at the state level through elected representatives and ballot referenda.

Catholic voters in Arizona are much more concerned about the state of the economy, with 58.5% identifying jobs, inflation, and interest rates as the chief national problems. In this border state, immigration and border security rank second, with 14.2% of Catholics identifying it as their top concern.

Nevada

Nevada may prove the most pivotal Senate race this cycle. Former Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt and Democrat Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto are running neck and neck in a race in which the RCP average has Laxalt’s margin as less than a single percentage point. This is the incumbent’s first reelection bid, and Nevada Catholics haven’t yet warmed up to the Democrat. A clear majority, 56.7%, favor Laxalt over Cortez Masto with 36.4%. The numbers are nearly identical in the governor’s race: 55.6% of Catholic voters favor Republican challenger Joe Lombardo over Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak with 34.2%.

Just 33% of Catholics in Nevada approve of Biden compared to 63.3% who disapprove. And even in this famously libertarian state, abortion is not a top concern. When asked to identify the most important issue facing the nation, 64.3% said economic issues, 12.4% replied with immigration and the border, and 10.3% pointed to climate change.

Only 5.4% said the top challenge facing the country today was abortion. As far as that issue is concerned, 59.8% said it should be dealt with at the local level through elected representatives.

Florida

For a while, Florida was seen as an opportunity for Democrats to go on the offense. But Sen. Marco Rubio has pulled away in the final stretch against Democratic challenger Rep. Val Demings and now leads in the RCP average by 6.4 points. Here, Catholics clearly favor the incumbent, supporting Rubio, 59.1%, over Demings, 36.9%. That preference for Republicans expands in the race for governor where 61.4% prefer Gov. Ron DeSantis over former Gov. Charlie Crist, 34.5%.

Catholic voters here are much more likely to identify economic concerns as a top priority over social issues. A whopping 67.6% say that economic issues are the top challenge compared to just 7% who identified abortion policy as the country’s chief concern. Overall, 59% want abortion policy to be set at the local level. The Catholic electorate has soured on Biden: Just 35.9% of these voters approve of the president, while 61.4% disapprove.

Ohio

The open Ohio Senate race leans Republican, and here the GOP is on the defensive to preserve the seat vacated by retiring Sen. Rob Portman. J.D. Vance leads Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan by a slim 2.4-point margin.

If the race was up to Catholic voters, the seat would stay red. A majority, 55.5%, favor Vance over Ryan, 41%. Catholic voters are even more enthusiastic about backing a Republican in the governor’s race there. They much prefer Gov. Mike DeWine, 61.3%, over Democratic challenger Nan Whaley, 34.4%.

Just like their brethren in other swing states, Ohio Catholics have soured on the president. A sizable majority, 62.4%, do not believe Biden has done a good job in the White House. If they agree with him that the coming elections are the most important in recent memory, it isn’t for the same reason. Just 7.3% of Catholic voters believe that abortion is a top national concern, compared with 59.8% who identified the economy in that category.

Our view from December 2020 was that sooner or later, nuclear would be included in the ESG basket (see “Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze“). There have been multiple signals from the US Energy Department to develop a domestic uranium strategy. 

We first pointed this out in March in a note titled “Uranium Stocks Soar After US Signals Aid For Nuclear Power.” Then in June, in a note titled “Uranium Stocks Soar On Report US Seeking Billions To End Reliance On Russian Enriched Uranium.”

On Wednesday, Jennifer Granholm, the US energy secretary, gave even more clues about a domestic uranium strategy that would eventually eliminate the US reliance on Russia and its allies Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for about 50% of its uranium needs, according to Reuters. 

“The United States wants to be able to source its own fuel from ourselves and that’s why we are developing a uranium strategy,” Granholm told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency conference in Washington. 

“We’ll be working on … enhancing that and making sure that we can fuel our own reactors as well as the partners to those who also have those ambitions,” she added.

In August, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which helps pave the way for nuclear energy to reduce US emissions before the decade’s end. 

Momentum is certainly building for expanding zero-emission nuclear power production and sourcing uranium domestically, outlined in the IRA via increased investments and tax incentives. 

IRA contained $700 million to produce a high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) supply for advanced nuclear power plants. Then in September, the White House requested Congress to allocate $1.5 billion in a temporary government funding bill to boost domestic HALEU supply. 

Granholm said the White House will “seek an additional large amount by the year-end for a more fulsome strategy.”

The move by the Energy Department is to remove Russia’s critical leverage to throttle US nuclear power. There’s a big push to increase US mining and processing of uranium to ensure US energy security. 

The broader Uranium space has been on an upswing for the last two years. 

Like the US, other countries around the world, including Germany and Japan, are developing plans or implementing strategies to revamp their nuclear power plants after years of neglect. It seems like climate alarmist Greta Thunberg’s war against nuclear is finally being ignored.  

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nationwide early voting and vote-by-mail turnout trends for the 2022 midterm election reflect a pattern similar to that of the pandemic-skewered 2020 election.

As a result, it may take several days after polls close on Nov. 8 for results to be confirmed in several key battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

In-person early voting periods and vote-by-mail have grown increasingly popular over the last two decades. They became mainstream during the 2020 election when more than 101 million Americans cast early in-person votes or vote-by-mail ballots.

The 2022 early vote and vote-by-mail turnout is expected to easily eclipse the record for midterm elections set in 2018, when more than 5 million voters cast early in-person ballots and 30.4 million voted by mail. The totals this year may come close to matching the number of ballots cast before Election Day in 2020.

According to the University of Florida’s United States Elections Project, as of Oct. 23, more than 7.46 million Americans have already cast their midterm ballots.

Turnout

Of those 7.46 million ballots, nearly 1.65 million were cast in-person in the 27 states where early voting is under way. Early voting periods range from four to 45 days before Election Day.

By week’s end, another 18 states will open polls for in-person early voting, beginning with seven states on Oct. 24—including Florida, Texas, Colorado—and ending with New York and New Jersey on Oct. 29.

More than 5.8 million mail ballots of 41.52 million requested nationwide have been returned to local election offices as of Oct. 23, according to U.S. Elections Project. All 50 states offer voting by mail, or absentee ballot options. Nine states, including California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Jersey, send mail ballots to all registered voters.

Not all states break down early votes and mailed votes by political affiliation when posting turnout figures. In Kansas, North Carolina, and New Mexico,  138,406 Democrats (40.5 percent) and 112,047 (32.8 percent) Republicans voted early in-person.

Georgia, which opened its early voting period on Oct. 17, reported more than 740,600 early ballots cast as of Oct. 23. Early voting ends Nov. 5 in the state.

The Georgia tally includes a record midterm first-day early voting turnout of 131,000, twice as high as the 71,000 first-day early voters in 2018, and nearly matching the 136,739 who showed up on the first day early-voting polls opened in 2020.

“We’re extremely pleased that so many Georgians are able to cast their votes, in record numbers and without any reports of substantial delays,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said in a statement. “This is a testament to the hard work of Georgia’s election workers, the professionals who keep our elections convenient and secure.”

Georgia, which does not provide party affiliations with early voting and vote-by-mail turnout tallies, reported Oct,. 23 that more than 31 percent of requested mail-in ballots had been returned.

Vote-by-Mail Turnout

Of 17 states that provide party affiliations for more than 3.74 million vote-by-mail tallies to the U.S. Elections Project, 51.3 percent came from registered Democrats, and 30 percent were mailed in by registered Republicans.

Florida, where early in-person voting begins Oct. 24 and ends Nov. 5, has registered the largest vote-by-mail turnout thus far with more than 1.16 million of 4.23 million requested mail ballots already filed with local elections offices as of Oct. 23. Registered Democrats cast 42.2 percent of the mail-ballot votes, and Republicans cast 38.2 percent. Nearly 20 percent of the mail ballots were cast by non-affiliated voters.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, in early October signed an executive order that allows four Southwest Florida counties that remain devastated in Hurricane Ian’s wake more flexibility in expanding in-person voting and voting by mail. Among those emergency measures is allowing three more days of early in-person voting.

During an Oct. 15 press conference, the Republican governor encouraged residents in Southwest Florida to vote by mail.

“What I would say is whatever you like is fine. We’ve got good returns on absentee, and I have confidence in early voting, in person (voting) and, of course, Election Day” voting, DeSantis said.

The only state that comes close to the 1.16 million who’ve returned vote-by-mail ballots in Florida is California, where all 21.87 million registered voters get ballots in the mail. As of Oct. 23, nearly 1.08 million Californians had returned mail ballots, according to the U.S. Elections Project.

Of those returned California VBM ballots, nearly half were mailed in by Democrats while 28 percent came from registered Republican voters.

Read more here…

The US rental market is beginning to cool down, but not in all areas. Boston surpassed San Francisco as the second most expensive rental market, with New York in the number one spot, according to Bloomberg. 

Rental listing company Zumper published new data that showed median one-bedroom rent in Boston increased by 5.9% in October from the prior month to $3,060. San Francisco dropped to the third spot with a 2.6% decline to $3,020. New York City is still the most expensive city for median one-bedroom rent, even though prices fell 2.3% to $3,860. 

“These eye-popping prices shine a light on Boston’s ongoing housing crisis,” Zumper said in the report, adding, “New inventory coming online is skewed towards the luxury market, pushing median asking prices even higher.”

Even though Boston rents are increasing, residential real estate brokerage Redfin’s latest report showed median rents across the country recorded their first notable decline in almost two years last month. 

“The rental market is coming back down to earth because high rents and economic uncertainty have put an end to the pandemic moving frenzy of 2020 and 2021, when remote work fueled an enormous surge in housing demand that would’ve otherwise been spread out over the coming years,” said Redfin Deputy Chief Economist Taylor Marr.

Marr continued: “Rising supply is also causing rent growth to slow. Scores of apartments that have been under construction are now coming on the market, and more homeowners are choosing to become landlords instead of selling in order to hold on to their record-low mortgage rates.”

And he expects “rent growth to slow further into 2023 as Americans continue to hunker down and more new rentals hit the market.”

So the takeaway is that some rental markets are cooling while others continue to boil. Avoid the ones that continue to see rising prices, and if you can, wait until next year to lock in a rental contract when prices are expected to be much lower. It doesn’t make sense to sign a two-year contract at the peak.