Month: May 2024

The Biden administration is finally taking significant steps to revitalize America’s nuclear power industry, a move likely to upset radical leftist environmentalists funded by shady non-governmental organizations. The administration recognizes that nuclear power is critical to reaching 100% reliable carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 rather than relying solely on unreliable solar and wind energy sources for the power grid (after all, AI data centers need reliable power). This nuclear renaissance has been a ZH theme for several years. 

“Alongside renewable power sources like wind and solar, a new generation of nuclear reactors is now capturing the attention of a wide range of stakeholders for nuclear energy’s ability to produce clean, reliable energy and meet the needs of a fast-growing economy, driven by President Biden’s Investing in America agenda and manufacturing boom,” the White House wrote in a statement.

The statement continued, “The Administration recognizes that decarbonizing our power system, which accounts for a quarter of all the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, represents a pivotal challenge requiring all the expertise and ingenuity our nation can deliver.” 

Today’s big news is that the White House created a new working group, the “Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery.” 

Here’s more on the working group’s tasks to rebuild the nation’s atomic power infrastructure:

To help drive reactor deployment while ensuring ratepayers and project stakeholders are better protected, the administration is announcing today the creation of a Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery working group that will draw on leading experts from across the nuclear and megaproject construction industry to help identify opportunities to proactively mitigate sources of cost and schedule overrun risk.

Working group members will be made up of federal government entities, including the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, the White House Office of Clean Energy Innovation & Implementation, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Department of Energy. 

The working group will engage a range of stakeholders, including project developers, engineering, procurement and construction firms, utilities, investors, labor organizations, academics, and NGOs, which will each offer individual views on how to help further the administration’s goal of delivering an efficient and cost-effective deployment of clean, reliable nuclear energy and ensuring that learnings translate to cost savings for future construction and deployment. 

Here are several projects already underway that the federal government is attempting to reverse the tide of plant closures in recent decades:

• The Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan would be the first U.S. nuclear plant to restart after shutting down.  It is supported by a $1.5 billion conditional loan commitment from the DOE Loan Programs Office to Holtec Palisades, LLC, to finance the restoration and resumption of service for an 800 MW nuclear generation station in Covert Township, Michigan. The project aims to bring back online the Palisades Nuclear Plant and upgrade it to produce clean, baseload power through at least 2050.

• Diablo Canyon in California is leveraging DOE’s Civil Nuclear Credit program to fund the plant’s life extension.

• The Inflation Reduction Act created a production tax credit (Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 45U) for existing nuclear plants, giving them more economic security to keep operating.

Bloomberg provides an infographic showing the latest plant closures and or shelved projects that can be restarted or finished.

With the revitalization of the Palisades nuclear plant and the recent commercialization of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, we have come to understand, as explained in the note titled “Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze,” that a nuclear renaissance in America is only just beginning. More recently, we explained this in “The Next AI Trade.”

Uranium stocks have soared since we pushed out the theme on Dec. 5, 2020. 

As well as spot uranium prices. 

“Taken together, these actions represent the largest sustained push to accelerate civil nuclear deployment in the United States in nearly five decades,” the White House concluded. 

Authored by Megan Redshaw, J.D. via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, masks were a recommended public health measure to prevent transmission of the virus. Yet new research suggests masks were ineffective at reducing the risk of infection when Omicron became the dominant variant.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, researchers found that several risk factors for infection, including wearing a mask, changed significantly in December 2021 when Omicron became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant.

To help explain why some interventions were associated with a decreased risk of infection early in the pandemic but were less protective or associated with an increased risk later on, the researchers examined survey data from the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) from 200,000 people who were tested for COVID-19 every two weeks.

Along with publishing data on disease prevalence, the ONS asked people questions about their circumstances and habits from November 2021 to May 2022 to determine whether certain risk factors were associated with positive COVID-19 tests. This time period covered multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the final few weeks of the Delta variant and Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2.

According to the study, adults and children who consistently wore masks at work, school, or in enclosed spaces prior to November 2021 had a reduced risk of infection, but not after the onset of the first wave of Omicron.

During the first wave of Omicron, never wearing a mask was associated with an increased risk of infection of about 30 percent in adults and 10 percent in children. But by the second wave, driven by the BA.2 subvariant from February 2022 onwards, wearing a mask offered no protection for adults and potentially increased the risk of infection for children.

“Early in the pandemic there were many studies published looking at risk factors for catching COVID, but far fewer studies after the first year or so. Our research shows that there were changes in some risk factors around the time the Omicron BA.2 variant became dominant,” lead author Dr. Paul Hunter of Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia, said in a news release.

Changes in Risk Factors May Explain Findings

Julii Brainard, the paper’s corresponding author and a senior researcher in population health at Norwich Medical School in the UK, explained in an email to The Epoch Times that several risk factors had changed over the entire pandemic, which could explain their findings.

“Our best guesses, and this is a bunch of guesses, is that a few things converged: In the UK by December 2021, most people had had multiple vaccinations and at least one, if not many, wild infections,” Ms. Brainard said.

“When [the] COVID pandemic started, its superpower was that everyone was susceptible to infection. Some people had mild symptoms, many people had terrible illness that threatened to overwhelm all health services. Social distancing rules and wearing masks didn’t provide perfect protection, but they probably prevented many infections in 2020 and helped to buy time until good vaccines were developed,” she added.

“However, the role of vaccination and repeat wild infections meant that, on average, by early 2022, the average severity of illness was very mild. So mild, in fact, that many people could end up transmitting without knowing they ever had it, and that would include within households; very few people wore masks around housemates. People drop their guard around the other people they have [the] most contact with, if they don’t seem ill at least,” she said.

As seen with emerging new diseases, Ms. Brainard said natural epidemic development may also explain their findings as later variants infect people differently than earlier ones. For example, later variants could make a disease more transmissible or easier to catch but result in milder illness over time. Additionally, the virus may affect the respiratory tract differently.

Ms. Brainard said another factor could be that our immune systems don’t form permanent immunity against a virus like SARS-CoV-2. As a result, people may experience recurring, generally mild cases of COVID-19 infections for the rest of their lives as the virus circulates forever among humans.

“Highly transmissible, very common, likely to be fairly mild in symptoms, is a perfect infection to spread within small social circles or households,” she said. “Maybe wearing a mask outside the home ceased to be that useful a protection because there was so much transmission likely to happen within ‘trusted’ social circles anyway.”

Masks Only Modestly Reduce Risk

Ms. Brainard told The Epoch Times that she and her co-author, Dr. Paul Hunter, felt that some people invested “way too much faith” in wearing masks. Their 2020 systematic review suggested that masks only modestly reduced the risk of transmission of influenza-like illnesses by about 19 percent if both parties—the infected and susceptible—wore masks.

Dr. Hunter has repeatedly referenced statements from the World Health Organization dating back to 2002, which suggest that nonpharmaceutical interventions only buy time in epidemics, and that pharmacological solutions actually shorten epidemics and reduce morbidity and mortality, she said.

“I personally felt bewildered when I encountered any people passionately promoting masks—the deep faith they wanted to place in wearing a mask. And the anger people expressed about wearing a mask or not,” Ms. Brainard told The Epoch Times.

At the same time, there’s “plenty to not be surprised about” as it relates to the paper’s findings, she said. We were already aware of certain aspects of epidemic development based on previous research, which guided our expectations. We know that epidemics naturally peak and subside, although they may reemerge. We also know that new microbial infections tend to become more transmissible and less dangerous over time, and that populations develop resistance to new diseases. Additionally, we understand that respiratory diseases are highly transmissible and challenging to contain, with most transmission occurring between people who are in close physical proximity, she added.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

A Ukrainian intelligence source told Reuters that a Ukrainian drone targeted a radar deep inside Russian territory that’s part of Russia’s early-warning system to detect nuclear missiles. The incident marks the second time within a week that Ukrainian officials reported attacks on a Russian nuclear warning system, known as “Voronezh M” radars.

The source said that the strike targeted a radar near the city of Orsk in Russia’s Orenburg Oblast, which is over 900 miles away from Ukrainian territory. The source didn’t say if there was any damage, and Russian media reported a drone was downed in the Orenburg region and that no civilian infrastructure was hit.

On May 22, a Ukrainian drone targeted a Voronezh M radar in Russia’s Krasnodar Oblast at a radar station about 300 miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory.

The US-state-funded RFE/RL reported there was damage to the radar site, citing satellite images, although Reuters said it could not verify the imagery.

While the Russian radars can track missiles fired by Ukraine, the primary function of the early-warning system is to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles to determine if Russia is coming under a nuclear attack.

Ukraine’s targeting of the systems could lead to a major response from Russia or potentially a miscalculation as the attacks come at a time of unprecedented nuclear tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The Telegraph reported that the attack on the radar in Krasnodar “sparked alarm” in the west. The report quoted Thord Are Iversen, a Norwegian military analyst, who said it was “not a particularly good idea…, especially in times of tension” and that it was “in everyone’s best interest that Russia’s ballistic missile warning system works well.”

Russia has escalated its war in Ukraine in direct response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory. For example, Russia recently launched major strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure after Russian oil refineries came under attack, and President Vladimir Putin has said his offensive in Kharkiv was a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s Belgorod Oblast.

A more conventional supply shock is underway – nowhere near the nuclear-level hit by government-enforced lockdowns several years ago. The Israel-Hamas war has led to Iran-backed Houthis freezing the critical maritime chokepoint of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, attacking Western commercial vessels with missiles and drones (the latest incident on Tuesday), and forcing major shipping operators to reroute containerized freight around the Cape of Good Hope, which strains the world’s containerized capacity and has just sent shipping costs surging once again. 

Bloomberg reports new data from France-based CMA CGM SA, the world’s third-largest carrier, indicating that the cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Asia to northern Europe jumped to $7k in the second half of June, up from $5k in the first half of the month. Rates ranged from $6k to $6.5k, with premium services approaching $1k.

“With capacity stretched by more than five months of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, the container shipping industry is scrambling to meet demand that’s picking up in the US and Europe,” Bloomberg said. 

Data from Bloomberg shows that Shanghai to Los Angeles, Shanghai to Rotterdam, Shanghai to Genoa, and Shanghai to New York are some of the most critical shipping lanes experiencing a price jump. 

Trine Nielsen, senior director and head of ocean EMEA at Flexport, said companies are “double-booking or increasing booking numbers to secure space” amid thinning capacity. 

The chief executive of Germany-based Hapag-Lloyd AG, the world’s number five container carrier, blamed the surge in shipping rates on the continued Red Sea chaos and shrinking capacity, plus “really strong demand.” 

There are no forecasts on how long the price surge will last. However, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said, “It could still last for another couple of months if the Red Sea situation doesn’t improve.” 

News today from Bloomberg says Israel will need at least seven more months to defeat Hamas. This suggests the fight could expand outside of Gaza to either Lebanon or Iran. If that’s the case, expect continued bombardment of ships in critical maritime chokepoints by Houthi rebels – with increasing risks of an oil supply shock that could send Brent crude over $100/bbl.

What a mess for Jerome Powell and company trying to slay the inflation monster. 

 

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

French President Emmanuel Macron signaled his support for Ukrainian forces to begin striking across their eastern border into Russia, ratcheting up support within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for attacks inside Russia.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Mr. Macron noted that Russian forces have launched missiles from within their internationally-recognized territory, which have then flown across the border into Ukraine’s eastern Kharkiv region. Mr. Macron said Ukraine must therefore be able to strike inside Russia to stop these types of attacks.

“We think we must allow (Ukraine) to neutralize the (Russian) military sites from which the missiles are fired, but not other civilian or military targets,” the French president said.

Mr. Macron’s remarks come as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has increasingly signaled support for NATO members to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy their blessing to use NATO-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia.

“The time has come for allies to consider whether they should lift some of the restrictions they have put on the use of weapons they have donated to Ukraine,” Mr. Stoltenberg said in a May 25 interview with The Economist. “Especially now when a lot of the fighting is going on in Kharkiv, close to the border, to deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves.”

Addressing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Monday, Mr. Stoltenberg again offered his support for Ukrainian forces to strike inside Russia’s borders.

“Self-defense includes the right to also attack legitimate military targets inside Russia,” the NATO chief said. “That’s self-defense and they have the right to self-defense, and we should help them to uphold the right of self-defense.”

Germany More Cautious About Russia Strikes

Mr. Scholz expressed reservations this weekend about encouraging Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. Addressing a German public forum on Sunday, May 26, the German chancellor said that the idea of striking inside Russia requires careful consideration and that it could prove “problematic” for NATO members to give Ukraine long-range weapons capable of such strikes without also providing careful guidance about the intended targets of these weapons.

While standing beside his French counterpart on Tuesday, Mr. Scholz avoided expressing outright support or opposition to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Instead, the German chancellor said Ukraine is “allowed to defend itself” in accordance with international law.

Other NATO Allies Divided

Talk of permitting Ukrainian forces to strike inside Russia with NATO-supplied weapons has divided other members of the Western security alliance.

A Reuters reporter asked British Defense Minister David Cameron, during a May 2 interview, whether Ukraine should carry out strikes on targets in Russia, to which the British official replied, “We don’t discuss any caveats that we put on those things but let’s be absolutely clear Russia has launched an attack into Ukraine and Ukraine absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia.”

“Including inside Russia?” the Reuters journalist again asked, to which Mr. Cameron replied, “Well it’s, that’s a decision for Ukraine, and Ukraine has that right.”

Over the weekend, Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson also told the Swedish newspaper Hallandsposten that “Ukraine has the right to defend itself through combat actions directed at the opponent’s territory as long as the combat actions comply with the laws of war.” Sweden is the newest member of NATO and was inducted into the alliance in March.

By contrast, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her government have distanced themselves from Mr. Stoltenberg’s calls for NATO to support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Speaking to Italy’s Ansa News agency on Monday, Ms. Meloni said the NATO secretary general should exercise “more prudence” with his remarks. Italy’s deputy prime minister and transportation minister, Matteo Salvini, also told Ansa News that Mr. Stoltenberg’s comments raise the prospect of a new world war and that the NATO secretary general should apologize for his recent comments or resign.

Biden Admin Not Changing Policy

The question of allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia has elicited a mix of views from among current and former members of President Joe Biden’s administration. The Biden administration’s overarching policy has been one of opposition to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, but some have urged a policy change or suggested caveats.

During a May 15 visit to Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. government has not “encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine.” However, Mr. Blinken left some room for Ukraine to decide for itself whether such strikes are prudent.

“Ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war, a war it’s conducting in defense of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity,” the secretary of state said. “We will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed, that it needs to win.”

In a May 19 interview with ABC News, former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said that with the recent Russian offensive around Kharkiv, the time had come for the Biden administration to change its tune and allow strikes on military bases inside Russia.

“I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are where troops are being supplied from,” Ms. Nuland said.

Asked to address Ms. Nulands remarks in the ABC News interview, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a May 20 Pentagon press conference that the Ukrainian military’s focus “ought to be on the close fight.” Moments later, Mr. Austin added that the United States expects Ukrainian forces to use U.S.-supplied weapons “on targets inside of Ukraine” but said “the aerial dynamic’s a little bit different” and that he’d “leave it up to the experts” to decide what to do.

A bipartisan group of 13 House sent a letter to Mr. Austin on May 20, urging the Biden administration to permit Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons on strategic targets inside Russia’s borders.

Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also appeared to throw his support behind allowing Ukrainian forces to use U.S.-supplied weapons inside Russia’s borders, telling a Voice of America reporter, “I think we need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fit” and “I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.”

Despite the growing domestic and international pressure, the Biden administration insisted it still won’t permit Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons inside Russia.

“We’re aware of the interest that President Zelenskyy has expressed in this regard. I would tell you that there’s no change to our policy at this point. We don’t encourage or enable the use of U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia,” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters at a White House press briefing on Tuesday.

Putin Warns NATO Members

Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn’t remained silent regarding NATO’s discussion of Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Addressing reporters at a press conference while visiting Uzbekistan on Tuesday, Mr. Putin said the Russian side is monitoring the comments and behavior of NATO members “very carefully.”

The Russian president further asserted that certain long-range missile systems like the Franco-British-designed Storm Shadow cruise missile and the U.S.-designed Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) are reliant on space-based targeting support provided to Ukrainian forces by NATO member nations. He suggested such targeting assistance closely implicates these NATO nations in any strikes on Russian territory.

“Targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission,” Mr. Putin said. “However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.”

The Russian president went on to say that NATO members therefore “should be fully aware of what is at stake,” adding, “They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also told Russian broadcaster Izvetsia on Tuesday that Russia would prepare countermeasures if European Union member nations decide as a group to lift restrictions on Ukrainian attacks within Russia’s borders.

Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClearDefense,

Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has laid out in an essay in Foreign Affairs the key differences between what he rightly calls “American Globalism” and what has been called the “America First” approach to global affairs. Brands clearly is in the “American Globalist” camp, but unlike other supporters of the “liberal international order,” he does not label “America First” as isolationist. Instead, he lauds the global benefits to the post-1945 world order and worries that they will eventually disappear if Donald Trump regains the presidency. Brands doesn’t want the United States to be a “normal” country that only looks after its own national interests. What he fails to appreciate, however, is that the post-1945 world order he supports is already gone.

The geopolitics of 1945-1991 disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The war in Ukraine, despite the claims of many globalists, has not recreated the Soviet threat to Europe. If Ukraine, or parts of Ukraine, remain under Russian control, U.S. national security will not be endangered. Nor will Europe’s. NATO has doubled in size since 1991. Russia in relative power is considerably weaker than the Soviet Union was throughout the Cold War, and its ruling class no longer has a revolutionary ideology that legitimizes its continued rule and motivates international aggression. Of course, Russian imperialism has not disappeared from Russia’s foreign policy DNA, but the Russian empire of the Czars was never considered to be an existential threat to the United States (although the Monroe Doctrine included Russia in its restrictive warning), even when it occupied Alaska and parts of California in the 19th century. And today’s Russia is having difficulty holding on to the eastern provinces of Ukraine, and has once again sent out feelers for a ceasefire to end the war.

The architects of American foreign policy after the Second World War formed alliances and built-up U.S. military power to protect our national interests which were threatened by Stalin’s Soviet Union. They understood that American security depended on the geopolitical pluralism of Eurasia. Our policymakers at the time had read their Mackinder, Spykman, and Burnham. Brands has read them, too, and has written insightfully about their geopolitical wisdom. The geopolitical pluralism of Eurasia continues to be important to U.S. security, but the primary threat has shifted from Europe to the Indo-Pacific–from Russia to China. Those who Brands labels as “America Firsters,” including Donald Trump, have recognized this. Indeed, it was in the Trump administration that the real “pivot” to Asia began to occur, led by key national security officials like Elbridge Colby, Matthew Pottinger, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. This shift was described in Josh Rogin’s magnificent book Chaos Under Heaven. 

American Cold War foreign policy was not based on a selfless commitment to globalism. What Brands calls “American Globalism” was undertaken to protect U.S. national interests. Brands quotes Dean Acheson in 1952 to the effect that the post-World War II situation required the United States to broaden its view of our national interests. And so, it did. But the post-World War II world is gone. The Soviet threat that inspired our commitment to American Globalism is gone. It has been replaced by the Chinese threat which requires a shift in our commitments given the limits of American power.

The “American Globalism” supported by Brands fails to account for the limits of American power. Policymakers should continue to read Mackinder, Spykman and Burnham, but should also read Kennan and Lippmann who counseled prioritizing threats in the context of limited resources. Yet Brands still wants America to engage in democracy and human rights promotion and protect “intangible norms such as non-aggression.” He worries that a second Trump administration would “deglobalize” our defense, perhaps by withdrawing our nuclear umbrella from Europe and parts of Asia. He fears that Trump would no longer use American power to defend “distant states.” He expresses concern that Trump would not view our current alliances as “sacred.” He suggests that Trump would settle for a Western Hemispheric defense. He sides with the critics of “America First” who claim that a more restrained foreign policy “would be devastating to global stability.”

The “American Globalism” touted by Brands has not been an unvarnished success. It has made the nations of an entire continent content with resting their security on the United States and imposed an unnecessary burden on American taxpayers to provide for Europe’s common defense. It has led to an inconclusive war on the Korean peninsula that cost the lives of nearly 40,000 U.S. military personnel, a humiliating military defeat in Vietnam that cost the lives of nearly 60,000 U.S. military personnel, and more recent “endless wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan that resulted the deaths of more than 7,000 U.S. military personnel for no appreciable gain. It has led to the establishment of a national security state and what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” that impinges on the liberties of American citizens and profits from wars.

The American foreign policy tradition has much deeper roots that the post-Second World War order. It reaches back to George Washington and the wise counsel of his Farewell Address that warned against permanent alliances with, and passionate attachments to, other nations, while allowing for temporary alliances that serve our nation’s interests. Time and circumstances have not rendered the wisdom of Washington’s words obsolete.

Francis P. Sempa is the author of “Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century” and “America’s Global Role.”  Francis is also writes the montly Best Defense column for RealClearDefense.  Read his latest: Ukraine and the Pity of War.

Washington’s King County, which includes Seattle, is drowning in a significant backlog of eviction cases, leaving thousands of landlords and tenants in limbo for more than six months in some cases.

Prior to the pandemic, evictions took 6-7 weeks if a tenant needed the boot. Now, an “unlawful detainer” eviction case in Seattle or surrounding areas won’t be heard until 2025.

“There’s a pretty enormous backlog,” said Edmund Witter from the King County Bar’s Pro Bono Services, Fox13 reports. “If you’re a landlord trying to evict someone, it could take months to get a hearing date. That’s the big issue.”

According to King County Councilman Regan Dunn, the last year has been particularly bad – with an estimated 2,200 to 6,500 unresolved cases, and roughly 600 new eviction requests each month.

“Why we’re seeing a lot of evictions right now is that there was a decent safety net over the last couple of years due to COVID,” said Witter – who added that his office is overloaded and has a list of 1,500 renters who need representation.

“We see tenants with $2,000 to $3,000 rent increases,” Witter said. “The cost of living is too high, and people cannot afford housing. They’re getting crushed underneath it, and that’s why we’re seeing record numbers of evictions.”

Meanwhile, judges told Fox13 that the expiration of pandemic-era eviction moratoriums and the depletion of federal aid created a perfect storm.

According to Councilman Dunn, people are exploiting the situation.

“There are serial squatters who know the rules and don’t care,” he said. “They’ve found ways to stay in their units longer because of new legal protections.”

It’s not just people at the margin… In March, a squatter made headlines for refusing to move out of a $2 million house in upscale Bellevue, despite a household income of $408,000 per year as a medical consultant. The landlord claims the renter, Sang Kim, owes him around $80,000 in legal filings as well.

Wild Saturday afternoon in Bellevue. Serial squatter Sang Kim came outside and confronted some of the protesters supporting landlord Jasakaran Singh. He also whacked my camera as I tried to ask him some questions. Otherwise, Singh’s wife is now calling out politicians by name and… https://t.co/BD00wzI7Qh pic.twitter.com/hOaV1ZqDHF

— Jonathan Choe (@choeshow) March 31, 2024

Landlords are fed up and have organized outside the home.

Dunn has proposed spending $1.3 million to increase the number of court staff in order to speed up the process.

“We can’t do any of that if there aren’t enough bodies to process these cases,” he said.

Witter, the squatter attorney, disagrees, saying of Dunn’s plan; “This does not address the actual issue of why people are being evicted in record numbers. He’s just saying we need to speed up making people homeless faster.”

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge wrongly stopped a Jan. 6, 2021, defendant from striking a potential juror who admitted he could not view the defendant as presumptively innocent, a U.S. appeals court has found.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta [an Obama appointee] denied a request from lawyers for Thomas Webster, who was later convicted on multiple counts, to strike a potential juror known as 1156 who had expressed support for President Joe Biden and said that support would put Mr. Webster at a disadvantage.

The potential juror also said he did not see the trial as “a 0-0 game to start” and, when asked by the judge if he could honor the presumption of innocence, said, “I honestly don’t think so.”

“The district court should have struck at least potential juror 1156 for cause,” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, writing for a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said in the May 28 ruling.

“A district court should never allow a juror to sit after he admits he cannot presume the defendant innocent. Full stop,” Judge Millett added later.

Lawyers for Mr. Webster said in a brief to the circuit court that while the potential juror did not end up being part of the jury, the man should have been struck by Judge Mehta. They also highlighted how the judge did not strike another prospective juror, who said that she was “more aligned” with government attorneys than Mr. Webster’s lawyers. They also raised concerns about how the judge then instructed counsel not to question subsequent jurors as to whether their views gave the defendant a disadvantage.

“The court’s further instruction to counsel put a chilling effect on the afternoon session of voir dire,” the lawyers said. “Counsel was limited from using words that jurors may understand better than the legal jargon of presumption of innocence to get at real concerns of bias.”

The appeal said Judge Mehta also should have granted a motion to change venue given results from a survey of Washington residents, that the judge committed an error when providing instructions to the jury, and that his approval of a sentencing enhancement for wearing body armor should be overturned.

After explaining how Judge Mehta wrongly did not strike potential juror 1156, the circuit court panel denied the entire appeal.

“That single error in a lengthy voir dire process does not indict the process itself given the absence of any prejudice tied to the jurors who actually decided Webster’s case,” Judge Millett wrote.

The panel said that Mr. Webster did not provide enough news articles to show the jury pool was prejudiced against him. even after noting that one quoted a person on social media as calling him an “eye gouger.”

“Without more, such routine and objective press coverage of a criminal prosecution does not trench upon the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” Judge Millett said.

A survey of 400 Washington voters found that some respondents were prepared to find people involved in the Jan. 6 breach guilty, without hearing evidence. But nearly half of respondents said they did not know how they would vote if named to a jury, that their vote depended on other factors, or refused to speculate how they would vote in such an instance, the circuit court noted in ruling against the change of venue arguments.

As for the instructions to the jury, Mr. Webster said the judge erred in telling jurors that one can violate federal law prohibiting assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers only if the person made physical contact with the victim.

The judge may have made a mistake, but “any such mistake would have helped, rather than hurt, Webster by making it harder for the jury to convict him,” the panel said. “Webster, after all, does not dispute that the jury was properly instructed on and found each of the necessary elements for his offense. So removing any surplus elements from the jury instructions would only have made it easier for the jury to convict. The jury still found Webster committed every true element of the crime.”

The sentencing enhancement for wearing body armor was correct, Judge Willett said, because Mr. Webster was wearing body armor when he pushed a Metropolitan Police Department officer on Capitol grounds.

“Webster used body armor while committing his assault. He put it on that morning, in part, for protection. He wore it throughout the day, including as he attacked [the officer]. Given those facts, the district court correctly applied the enhancement,” she said, citing guidelines that say harsher sentences can be imposed if a person is convicted of a crime of violence and “used the body armor with respect to that offense.”

The court also said Mr. Webster’s sentence, 10 years, was appropriate given his actions.

Judges Mehta and Millett were appointed by former President Barack Obama. Judge Millett was joined by Circuit Judges  Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Israel is warning that its military operation in Gaza will continue through at least the end of the year, in an assessment which is sure to shock and anger the growing chorus of international critics and countries.

Israel’s national security adviser and top Netanyahu aide Tzachi Hanegbi stated Wednesday: “We are now in the fifth month of 2024, which means we expect another seven months of fighting to deepen our achievements and achieve our goal of destroying the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”

The same official stressed that the war cabinet had defined 2024 as “a year of combat” in the wake of the Oct.7 terror attack by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Israeli officials have long signaled that the big Rafah incursion is expected to be the last major offensive of the conflict, but since then Hamas has reappeared in places in northern and central Gaza where it had previously been defeated.

Hanegbi’s fresh assessment strongly suggests that Rafah will not be the end, despite Prime Minister Netanyahu having previously portrayed Rafah as the “last bastion” of the fight. But the Israeli leader has also vowed that Israeli forces won’t stop until Hamas is fully eradicated.

This is proving easier said than done – as the combat conditions throughout Gaza are akin to the grinding urban fighting US Marines faced in Fallujah or Mosul – and probably worse.

When the United States has faced an insurgency, in Iraq or Afghanistan for example, it led to many years of fighting and a seemingly endless unstable occupation.

There’s also the difficult reality of the tunnels. By some estimates, all combined there is a vast system of literally hundreds of miles of tunnels running under the Gaza Strip. Hamas militants have become experts as utilizing the tunnels to employ rapid hit and run guerilla tactics.

Given that often ambushes against the Israel Defense Forces are conducted in small teams, typically of 3 or 5 Hamas fighters, the group is often able to inflict damage while mitigating the number and rate of its losses.

AJ: Officially reported figures from each side…

There continue to be thousands of Hamas militants in the tunnels, settled in and ready to conduct a long insurgency, and amid a dense civilian population. For this reason, some analysts see Israel in a bit of a lose-lose situation. Hamas can hide out, strike convoys, and bleed Israeli forces slowly.

Meanwhile the rising civilian death toll will continue to put immense political pressure on the Netanyahu government. The ‘cost’ in blood and treasure will also drive bigger and more consequential protests domestically, which have already been running hot in places like Tel Aviv and in front of the Knesset.

Authored by Win Ko Ko Aung via BitcoinMagazine.com,

In a world where “talent is everywhere, opportunity is not,” the existing fiat monetary system perpetuates the divide between those with access and resources those without. Even in democratic societies, which have their own flaws, people generally enjoy stable currencies, freedom, and rule of law. These features create an environment rich with opportunities, where a person’s start in life doesn’t have to dictate where they end up.

Bitcoin advocate and bestselling author Lyn Alden is a prime example of overcoming obstacles and taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by democratic societies. Despite experiencing homelessness for several years, she worked her way up to become a well-known figure in financial circles. Her story is not unique; many refugees fleeing war and persecution have found ways to adapt, innovate, and thrive in new lands, contributing significantly to their adopted communities.

WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, for example, grew up without electricity in Ukraine, and after immigrating to America he spent several years cleaning grocery stores before finally achieving success. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin has tweeted about how he found success in America after escaping persecution in Russia. “My family and I, and thousands of Soviet Jews like us, came to the US as refugees in ’91, running from a regime that persecuted us because of who we were,”. Another amazing immigrant success story is that of Mai Lee Chang, who was born in a Thai refugee camp to Vietnamese parents and only knew one English word — “restroom” — when she started school in the U.S. Chang overcame numerous obstacles and is now an engineer contributing to NASA’s journey to Mars.

However, the situation is vastly different under authoritarian regimes, where a person’s potential is often predetermined by their birth circumstances. Typically, in such places if you’re not born into a family with connections to corrupt officials—in other words, if you’re not a rich kid—your ability to innovate and your entrepreneurial spirit will be systematically suppressed. Under these regimes, the fiat system isn’t based on merit, but rather rigged in favor of such ‘crony kids.’ In other words, the systems are based on nepotism, family connections, and corruption.

In the past, when there was neither the internet nor smartphones available, the average individual living in such hostile environments simply accepted the harsh reality of being destined to serve dictators and their family members. Today, however, Bitcoin is emerging as more than just a technology; it serves as a gateway to financial empowerment without compromising moral values. It offers a powerful tool for breaking through many of the concrete barriers erected by oppressive governments.

The experience of Swan Htet Aung (Swan), an AI entrepreneur from Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), demonstrates how Bitcoin can provide a lifeline to individuals facing the harsh reality of starting from scratch without money or family connections. After founding his AI company in 2016, Swan’s startup grew quickly, and by 2020 it was generating annual revenue of over $300,000.

Highlighting the importance of Bitcoin in preserving financial health, Swan recalled a pivotal moment after the coup in February 2021. Four days after the military takeover, he withdrew his company’s cash and converted it to Bitcoin and USDT. He made this decision just a couple of weeks before banks in Myanmar began limiting withdrawals for individuals and businesses, allowing him to take control of his company’s assets. Unfortunately, his choice to keep the remaining USD assets in the banks caused him to lose a significant portion of the company’s financial assets when the Myanmar’s junta enacted an extreme new monetary policy designed to conserve USD for its war machine. The policy, issued by Myanmar’s Central Bank on April 3rd 2022, resulted in the forceful conversion of Swan’s USD reserves into Myanmar’s rapidly depreciating local currency (the Myanmar Kyat) without his consent at 30% below the market rate.

The new policy mandated that “Residents within the country must repatriate foreign currency earnings obtained from abroad to Myanmar. These earnings are to be sold and exchanged for Myanmar Kyat within one working day through banks holding Authorized Dealer (AD) licenses by opening a foreign currency account in Myanmar.”

People living in countries with more fair and just legal systems might find it difficult to comprehend such oppressive financial policies. However, Myanmar actually has a history of centralized financial institutions wielding power to suppress its citizens. A notorious example happened in 1987 when the government suddenly demonetized 25, 35, and 75 Kyat notes, effectively erasing 80% of the currency circulating in the economy overnight.

More recently, after Myanmar’s violent military coup in 2021, the Burmese military used tactics such as freezing the bank accounts of activists, journalists, and supporters of the anti-coup movement, further demonstrating the junta’s tactic of oppressing people via the fiat financial system. Unfortunately, such abusive policies are often effective in places such as Myanmar, where people are preoccupied with ensuring their physical survival, securing food for their table, and keeping a roof over their heads – leaving them with little energy or no interest to challenge or fight against injustices.

Before 2010, Myanmar had a lower mobile phone ownership rate than North Korea, and dictator Than Shwe’s regime discouraged internet use by spreading propaganda that the internet was merely a place for adult videos. By 2016, however, the landscape had changed dramatically, as social media, affordable smartphones, and cheap SIM cards had become widely accessible to the majority of the country’s population.

Initially, Myanmar entrepreneur Swan came to the U.S. at age 32 for the GenAI event hosted by AWS in San Francisco to learn and gain new experiences, intending to return to Myanmar. However, while he was in transit, the Burmese military activated a forced conscription law, drastically changing his life trajectory. This law, combined with the financial instability caused by the Central Bank’s actions, widespread socio-economic injustice, and the country’s hyper-surveillance system, prompted Swan to decide to stay longer in the U.S. He now hopes to obtain an O1-Visa to continue his work and rebuild his dream in an environment where there are more opportunities to innovate and develop. While the U.S. has its own inequalities and domestic issues, many foreigners still view it as the best destination to pursue their dreams, believing that hard work and innovation can lead to success.

In a conversation for this article, Swan recounted the early days of his startup in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city. Along with two friends, Swan launched an AI software company in 2016, a period of time when Myanmar was undergoing significant reforms and gradually increasing its participation in the global community after over half a century of isolation.

“Human labor is cheaper in Myanmar than subscribing to software,” Swan said.

“It makes sense for business owners to hire staff at a salary of $100 a month and assign them multiple tasks, whether they’re inside or outside the scope of the job, unlike a chatbot for customer service.”

While AI job displacement is rising in the developed world, in developing countries sweatshop conditions and cheap labor costs will always outcompete AI, at least in places where electricity is limited and there’s zero democracy (of course, low wages and sweatshop working conditions also raise a host of ethical problems that must be addressed).

Swan then shared the early struggles of his startup, “We spent pretty much all of 2016 just developing the product because we didn’t get a single customer. I had a side job and lived with my parents in a rented apartment while the other two co-founders left to pursue other full-time opportunities.”

Swan, who speaks Burmese and English fluently, mentioned that he faced social constraints while raising funds, primarily because Myanmar is an emerging market. Additionally, there was an underlying social barrier: he had never worked abroad and held a degree from a university in Yangon. Unlike the privileged ‘crony kids’, Swan lacked a privileged background, so his start-up struggled to find investors despite generating annual revenues of $300,000 in 2020 and signing deals with over 1,000 business partners, including multinational corporations like Samsung, Unilever, Carlsberg, NIVEA, and many more.

If a protocol-based fundraising system like Bitcoin was available for entrepreneurs in the developing world, talented individuals like Swan could scale up their startups regardless of their socio-economic status or whether they have a prestigious degree.

Bitcoin may be seen as an investment asset class in the developed world or misunderstood as an environmentally damaging technology, but it represents a lifeline, money, and access to the global capital market for talented individuals in developing countries who are trapped in an unfair monetary system which primarily benefits privileged ‘crony kids.’ These talented individuals don’t have the luxury of engaging in the unfinished global debate about Bitcoin. Rather, they are desperately trying to break free from the cycle of economic oppression. Thankfully, under the Bitcoin standard individuals can access opportunities and financial freedom, ultimately contributing to a more equal and prosperous global community.