CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

In the mid-1990s, the murder rate was so high in Minneapolis that it earned the nickname, "Murderapolis."

Now, more than two years after the Democrat stronghold turned into ground zero for the 'defund the police' movement after the murder of George Floyd, Murderopolis is back.

In a kind of Newtonian response, the city became the epicenter of the culturally seismic "Defund the Police" movement. But that progressive local effort fizzled with a decisive referendum last November.

Now, with its police department under investigation by the Department of Justice, the city of 425,000 is trying to find a way forward amid a period of heightened crime that began shortly after Floyd's death. -CNN

In 2020, murders jumped from 46 to nearly 80. In 2021, 93 people were killed in the city. This year, homicides are on track to surpass 2020.

"The criminals were celebrating. They were getting rich" after police withdrew from violent neighborhoods in the wake of Floyd's killing, said longtime resident, KG Wilson. "They were selling drugs openly."

Wilson's 6-year-old granddaughter was killed in May of 2021 after getting caught in the crossfire of a shootout in north Minneapolis.

Others are blaming the pandemic.

"It unsettled settled trajectories," said former federal prosecutor, Mark Osler, who now teaches at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. "Kids who were going to school, who would have graduated but drifted off because there is no school — we're seeing a lot of the violent crime is by juveniles."

After the left demonized cops following Floyd's murder, the Minneapolis PD headcount dropped from 900 in early 2020 to around 560 in August - a loss of more than 1/3 of the force.

The hate was so strong that a 2021 ballot measure which would have replaced the Minneapolis PD with a new "public health-oriented" Department of Public Safety, barely failed - with 56% of voters rejecting it (61% in north Minneapolis).

Then, the city council got wise as crime skyrocketed - dealing a final blow to the "defund" movement with a vote to re-fund the police by reversing a cut they'd made the prior year. Mayor Jacob Frey, meanwhile, has proposed beefing up the police budget for the next two fiscal years.

Feeling of lawlessness

According to the report, some 60% of police calls for shots fired have come from the north side, despite it making up just 15% of the population. Young men are openly selling drugs in public during the day, such as a gas station on Broadway ave. dubbed the "murder station" due to all the fatal shootings.

"You pull up to get gas -- they try to sell you drugs," said Paul Johnson, 56. "And not just three or four, but it's a bulk of people."

Johnson's friend, Brian Bogan, said he moved from north Minneapolis to relatively safer St. Paul, because he didn't want his kids growing up in an area where you don't know if "it's fireworks or gunshots."

911 wait times have jumped

After Floyd's death average 911 response times from from 10 or 11 minutes in May of 2020, to 14 minutes later in the year - jumping in 2021 to more than 17 minutes in the north side's fourth precinct, where they remain.

Some nights are so busy that the dispatchers are directed to hold all non-priority-1 calls citywide; these would include reports of property damage, suspicious persons or theft. That happened during a frenetic five-hour stretch on the night of September 8, when officers responded to multiple shootings and calls for shots fired — many of them in north Minneapolis; one near the "murder station" — that left two dead and seven wounded. -CNN

Police officials have characterized the slower response times as an "expected byproduct of a depleted force that has witnessed an overwhelming wave of retirements, resignations and disability leaves" due to post-traumatic stress.

"There's really been a very fundamental challenge to our sense of purpose in law enforcement," said interim Minneapolis Police Chief Amelia Huffman. "(Minneapolis) is the eye of the storm. So all of those challenges and the pressure is magnified, you know, a hundred fold -- a thousand fold."

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the latest liberal leader to call for an international alliance to censor speech. Unsatisfied with the unprecedented corporate censorship of social media companies, leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Speech regulation has become an article of faith on the left. Ardern used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for censorship on a global scale.

Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation:

But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?

This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.

We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.

Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views.   To answer her question on “how do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists” is that you convince people using the same free speech.  Instead, Ardern appears to want to silence those who have doubts.

While referring to a global censorship coalition as a “light-touch approach to disinformation,” Ardern revealed how sweeping such a system would likely be. She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.”

“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”

That is the same rationale used by authoritarian countries like China, Iran, and Russia to censor dissidents, minority groups, and political rivals.  What is “hateful” and “dangerous” is a fluid concept that government have historically used to silence critics or dissenters.

Ardern is the smiling face of the new generation of censors. At least the old generation of censors like the Iranians do not pretend to support free speech and openly admit that they are crushing dissent. The point is that we need to be equally on guard when censorship is pushed from the left with the best of motivations and the worst of means.

As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

A few years ago, life was good for the fake meat industry. Beyond Meat had been given vast amounts of real estate in grocery stores, and had scored a deal with Burger King to sell "Impossible" Whoppers. McDonald's rolled out a McPlant burger (which was quietly shelved last month). Snarky woke advertisements permeated the airwaves and interwebs as plant-based 'meats' were on the rise. In fact, Beyond Meat waas valued at over $10bn in 2019, more than Macy's or Xerox - with the most bullish investors claiming that plant-based meat would make up 15% of all meat sales by 2030.

Now, as Bloomberg reports, the fake meat industry is getting ground into hamburger - and that doesn't include cannibalistic nose-biting execs, according to Deloitte Consulting, LLC.

Sales of refrigerated meat alternatives at retailers are down 10.5% by volume for the 52-weeks ending September 4, 2022, according to data from Information Resources Inc., or IRI. While higher prices are the top reason for the slide, it’s not the only one, according to Jonna Parker, a fresh food specialist at the market research company. -Bloomberg

"Proteins that were cheaper on a price-per-pound basis did fare better," said Parker, who noted that semi-vegetarian shoppers who used to opt for the alternative product will now choose the less-expensive real thing. In short, people are less willing to pay a premium for fake meat, especially considering that 'taste and health concerns' are playing a role.

According to Deloitte, the fake meat industry has a perception problem. Based on a July survey of 2,000 consumers, there's been a decline in the belief that plant-based meat is actually healthier and environmentally sustainable vs. meat from animals.

Despite the increasing alarm over climate change, the number of Americans who are vegetarian or vegan has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years. About 5% of Americans in 2018 said they are vegetarian, while 3% are vegan, according to a Gallup poll.

Even when participants in a study conducted at Purdue University in Indiana were given information about the carbon footprint of meat production, participants were more likely to go with regular meat over a plant-based alternative.

Bhagyashree Katare, an author of the study, said that participants may have been put off by the taste of plant-based meat and the fact that it is not necessarily a healthier alternative to regular meat. Many plant-based meat alternatives are comparable to their real meat counterparts in nutritional content. That it costs about the same as meat also diminishes its attractiveness to consumers. -The Guardian

"If I’m spending money in a restaurant, and I’m a meat eater, why would I spend money on plant-based meat? I would rather eat an actual burger," said Katare. "It’s a technology, and it takes a long time for people to trust the technology and adopt it. I think that’s where plant-based meat is. Maybe the technology will improve, and it will get better health-wise."

What's more, the actual market may be much smaller than previously thought - which coincides with a 'growing cultural resistance to its "woke" status' - even among people who are trying in earnest to reduce their consumption of red meat.

For example, when Cracker Barrel announced they were adding Impossible Foods' sausage to its menu over the summer, it faced fierce opposition via social media.

As The Guardian notes, the McDonald's McPlant burger was shelved last month, as the push to get US meat eaters to switch to plant-based alternatives has proven a challenge.

Multiple chains that partnered with the company, including McDonald’s, have quietly ended trial launches. In August, the company laid off 4% of its workforce after a slowdown in sales growth. Last week, its chief operating officer was reportedly arrested for biting another man on the nose during a road rage confrontation.

It’s a dramatic reversal of fortune. Just two years ago, Beyond Meat, its competitor Impossible Foods and the plant-based meat industry at large seemed poised to start a food revolution. -Guardian

"The bulls in the industry, I think, had a very wild, very optimistic estimate of how big the market could get," said Mizuho Securities analyst John Baumgartner. "There was a lot of exuberance in this category. It was new, it was different, it was on trend."

"But the consumer environment is tough, and this stuff is not cheap," he added.

Year-to-date, Beyond Meat stock is down 77%, and is valued at less than $900 million.

Authored by Laura Powell via The Brownstone Institute,

When Assemblymember Evan Low, the principal author of California Assembly Bill 2098, told the California Senate Committee that his bill was “really straightforward, very straightforward,” many of us in the gallery failed to restrain ourselves from expressing our incredulity. 

He delivered this statement at the conclusion of a hearing that had lasted over an hour, during which it seemed no two Senators on the committee had the same idea of how the law would operate. Assemblymember Low had struggled to respond to questions from the committee and had often resorted to simply reading the text of the bill. That June 26 hearing presented the only time any legislators questioned the bill during its entire passage through the legislative process.

Assembly Bill 2098 would empower the Medical Board of California to go after the licenses of physicians who disseminate “misinformation” or “disinformation” regarding Covid-19. The bill in its latest iteration defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” The inscrutability of this definition lies at the core of the bill’s opponents concerns. 

No clear scientific consensus exists with respect to this novel virus, and even if it did, it may be proven incorrect later. Without clear guidance regarding what would constitute “misinformation,” physicians can only guess if they risk losing their licenses for expressing their good-faith disagreements with positions of public health officials. Even if in practice, the Medical Board only applied the law to speech that the First Amendment does not protect, the law’s vagueness would render it unconstitutional, because it would tend to cause doctors to censor themselves.

The million-dollar question remains unanswered: Who would be targeted by Assembly Bill 2098? On one hand, the California Medical Association, the bill’s sponsor, cites the example of doctors who call “into question public health efforts such as masking” as creating the need for this bill. Likewise, the taxpayer-funded lobbying group County Health Executives Association of California decries “a small minority of medical professionals” who have led some Californians to “reject public health measures such as masking and physical distancing.” 

The analysis of the bill from the Senate committee, in discussing the need for this bill, cited the example of the state of Florida refusing to take action against the license of Florida Surgeon General for, among other things, “question[ing] the value of face masks in preventing the spread of the pandemic.” The idea that the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of Covid is part of the “contemporary scientific consensus” confirms physicians’ fears that they would risk discipline for questioning any edict from public health on Covid.

On the other hand, when critics of Assembly Bill 2098 argue that questioning the effectiveness of masks falls well within the bounds of legitimate difference of opinions, proponents poo-poo their concerns about the law being applied in an overly broad way and insist that the law would only be used against truly “bad doctors.” But imbuing bureaucrats with power while trusting they will not exercise it would be incredibly foolish. 

Some, such as Assemblymember Low, bill co-author Assemblymember Akilah Weber, and a representative of the California Medical Association, imply that this bill would only apply in cases of intentional harm. There is nothing in the letter of the law that limits the bill’s reach to situations where someone was harmed or where the information was disseminated knowing it was false. (Intentionally misleading would fall under the definition of “disinformation” as opposed to “misinformation.” An earlier draft of the bill mentioned harm to a patient as a factor for the Medical Board to consider.) 

Members of the Medical Board of California itself have expressed confusion about how the law would be applied and withheld its support initially. MBC President Kristina Lawson, an attorney who has been a driving force behind this bill, claims to have clarity about how it would be applied but apparently is only willing to discuss the matter in private. 

While most proponents say as little as possible regarding Assembly Bill 2098’s implications, one group is more vocal and less guarded in its statements. Two self-described “frontline” California doctors, Nick Sawyer and Taylor Nichols, formed No License for Disinformation (NLFD) in September 2021. 

As its name suggests, the organization’s purpose is to promote policies that use the threat of medical license revocation to discourage doctors from spreading information it believes to be false. Sawyer has twice testified before legislative committees in favor of Assembly Bill 2098. NLFD’s prolific tweets and other public statements paint a dystopian picture that reflects opponents’ worst fears of the type of authoritarian regime proponents wish to impose. 

NLFD pushes the idea that there is, as Sawyer described it his testimony before the Assembly committee on April 19, a “well-coordinated and well-funded network of doctors” who promote “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, sow distrust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government, and ultimately the Covid-19 vaccines.” 

At the outset, note the irony that NLFD frequently criticizes “conspiracy theorists” while promoting its own conspiracy theories. And NLFD not only wants to silence those who undermine faith in public health measures, but anyone who “sows distrust” in the government. Let that sink in.

NLFD’s tweets elaborate on its conspiracy theories, which are, like most conspiracy theories, built on weak evidence that magnify tenuous connections. A recent tweet shared a long thread posted by one of its founders that purports to uncover a web of right-wing “disinformation” purveyors funded by oil money. It implicates, among others, anyone associated with the Great Barrington Declaration or Brownstone Institute and specifically names UCSF professor and doctor Vinay Prasad, journalist and author David Zweig, and Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Stefan Baral as part of this cabal. 

An August 13, 2022 tweet promotes a Substack article, written by NLFD “Research Consultant” Allison Neitzel, which calls America’s Frontline Physicians, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, and The Unity Project the “Big 4” responsible for a “physician-led attack on public health.” NLFD has often identified these four as its primary targets, sometimes adding the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons and Urgency of Normal to its hit list. NLFD asserts, without any basis, that these groups work together. 

Some of NLFD’s targets, such as the Urgency of Normal’s leadership, are mainstream physicians. NLFD dismisses them as ranging from “formerly well respected immunologists to outright frauds.” It links to a long thread from one of its founders that accuses Urgency of Normal of being part of a right-wing operation to promote an “anti-mask narrative.” 

It complains that CNN gave Dr. Jeanne Noble, Associate Professor at UCSF, a platform. It retweeted a tweet calling for Dr. Lucy McBride to be reported to the medical board for opposing mask mandates in schools and responded with a link directing the public on how to do so.

It dismissed every doctor who participated in a roundtable hosted by Florida Governor DeSantis, which included Dr. Tracy Høeg, as “Covid deniers” and “disinformation doctors” and warned that no one should accept medical advice from any of them.

These attacks contradict any claim that NLFD claims only wants to silence doctors who peddle dangerously false medical advice rather than those who have good-faith disagreements with official Covid policy.

The inclusion of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration—Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya—at the top of NLFD’s hit list is puzzling. Not only does the declaration espouse a conventional viewpoint, none of the Great Barrington Declaration’s authors is a practicing physician and therefore law like Assembly Bill 2098 would not affect them. 

NLFD has called out the Great Barrington Declaration around a dozen times and frequently targets Stanford professor Bhattacharya in particular (he earned a medical degree but does not practice medicine or hold a medical license). NLFD doesn’t just accuse Bhattacharya of being wrong, it accuses him of intentionally lying, calling him a “disinformation doctor” and a “prominent purveyor of Covid-19 disinformation,” accusing him of telling lies that have killed people (along with Vinay Prasad), and insinuating he should be reported for perjury. In addition to its direct attacks, NLFD has retweeted dozens of criticisms of Bhattacharya and seemed to delight in a journalist getting Twitter to temporarily suspend his account for a minor oversight.

NLFD’s messaging has an unquestionably partisan slant, despite claiming to be nonpartisan. It has posted dozens of tweets critical of the Republican Party. Some of these criticisms do not clearly relate to the organization’s mission of combating misinformation. 

For example, this August 8, 2022 thread attacks Republican lawmakers for opposing a drug pricing control provision in a bill. The same day, another tweet alleges that the GOP Doctors Caucus is allied with “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli. They attempt to tie this issue in with their mission by asserting that Republicans in general are “affiliated with licensed physicians” spreading Covid misinformation. 

In another recent example, NLFD posted a clip from 2017 accusing Rand Paul of being in cahoots with Putin. It had previously suggested that Paul should be reported to the medical board for reasons it doesn’t identify. NLFD has even branched out to opine on political issues totally unrelated to the practice of medicine, encouraging the public to report “harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school board members or staff to the FBI.

NLFD has numerous posts elaborating on its idea of a right-wing, Republican-led conspiracy to spread disinformation. It uses the phrase “disinformation pipeline” to describe an alleged process by which Republicans in state legislatures deliberately harm public health by “institutionalizing disinformation” through, for example, passing laws that shield doctors from discipline for controversial Covid treatments. It claims that the overall Republican agenda is to “create fear/animosity/victimhood amongst supporters, whipping up anti-science/anti-government sentiment making them more likely to take up arms against the government.” It has asserted that “[a]ll COVID disinformation doctors are inextricably tied to Trump.” 

Many of NLFD’s conspiracy theories are quite dark and disturbing. It recently retweeted a thread from its own Nick Sawyer, which argues that the United States is currently in the midst of a civil war, which goes unrecognized because it is an information war. Another recent tweet exhorts: “This is an information war, a battle for the truth, and [every] American is a soldier. Get up to speed and start fighting for evidence based reality. No one is going to do this for us.” 

NLFD’s primary weapon in this imagined information war is censorship, but it also advocates for criminal prosecution for expressing the wrong ideas. It frequently encourages its followers to report physicians to their medical boards, even if they have no relationship with them. It also frequently calls on Twitter to deplatform accounts it feels say things that are untrue. But it goes even further, tagging the FBI and posting a link to the FBI tip line, asking its followers to report people for alleged misinformation. 

It tags the United States Department of Justice’s Criminal Division in its tweets. It calls its targets a “threat to national security.” NLFD erroneously claims that under current California law, a physician can be criminally prosecuted for any untrue statement. NLFD wants to go far beyond having medical boards discipline licensed physicians—they want to see their enemies in jail.

Against this backdrop of NLFD’s other public statements, it’s hard to imagine how Sawyer managed to sound sincere when he told the Senate committee:

“This bill is not supposed to cause problems with physicians’ free speech around academic discussion. This bill will allow the medical board to discipline doctors who say things like the vaccines cause AIDS or that the vaccines are killing more patients than Covid, using manipulated data or that the vaccines are implanting microchips so the government can track you. I’m all for academic debate—in fact, we wouldn’t be where we are today without robust academic debate, but that’s not what this is about.”

Make no mistake—Assembly Bill 2098 is not just about protecting patient safety. That is why one member of the Medical Board of California warned that the bill would be counterproductive to the Board’s mission.

Assembly Bill 2098 was not the brainchild of Assemblymember Low or any other California lawmakers. It’s part of an effort to enact similar policies around the country, sparked in large part by a declaration from the Federation of State Medical Boards in July 2021. 

California is often described as a bellwether: “As California goes, so goes the nation.” That saying rings especially true with respect to Assembly Bill 2098, given that this is a test case for a national movement and that Governor Gavin Newsom has obvious presidential aspirations. 

The bill will become law on January 1 unless the governor vetoes by September 30, and even then, the Democrats who voted for the bill have sufficient numbers to override a veto. Then we will discover whether our high courts still uphold the principle of free speech or whether they will allow themselves to be co-opted by the soldiers fighting to be the arbiters of Truth.

Despite this past week which has seen US officials echo growing concerns over Moscow's ratcheting nuclear rhetoric - which Ukraine too has said it is taking seriously - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is now boasting his country has received a new, advanced US missile system. 

He confirmed in a fresh interview with CBS’s "Face the Nation" that the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) has been long sought after by Kyiv, but previously in the war repeatedly denied:

Zelensky thanked the U.S. for the system as well as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems it’s received, but added that his troops "absolutely need the United States to show leadership and give Ukraine" additional air defense systems it has requested.

Ukraine began urgently asking for transfer of the NASAMS by early summer, but the Biden administration as reluctant to provide missile systems with longer range, concerned they would be used to strike inside Russian territory and thus drag Washington and Moscow into direct cofronation.

 According to a CNN report in June, "Ukrainian officials have asked for the missile defense system, known as a NASAMS system, given the weapons can hit targets more than 100 miles away, though the Ukrainian forces will likely need to be trained on the systems, a source said."

But that's apparently no longer enough of a concern to halt these longer range systems, despite the Kremlin repeatedly warning that attacks on its territory with foreign weapons are a severe red line.

According to The Hill: 

The Biden administration approved the shipment of six of the missile systems late last month as part of a nearly $3 billion lethal aid package to bolster Kyiv as it battles the Kremlin invasion.  

The NASAMS are considered "medium-range" systems, but are considered an improvement over prior missiles sent to Ukraine, which typically had a max range of 30 to 50 miles. The NASAMS are capable of defending against aircraft, cruise missiles, as well as drones and were designed by the US and Norway.

But Zelensky in the CBS interview didn't waist time asking for more, as has been typical, saying that amid his forces achieving success in the ongoing eastern counteroffensive they urgently need more tanks, artillery, and more missiles.

By Alan Adler of FreightWaves

Nikola Corp. is recalling all 93 battery-electric Nikola Tre Class 8 trucks it has built to date because improper installation of the shoulder anchorage assembly of the seat belts could reduce protection in a crash.

Nikola imports cabs from Italy, where they are built by manufacturing partner Iveco, which is responsible for the defect.

The electric truck maker began regular production at a new plant in Coolidge, Arizona, in March. It reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Sept. 14 that it has no warranty or customer claims for the issue.

The assembly as designed and installed could become detached under the weight of a passenger. The seat belt anchor assembly design does not allow full thread engagement for the anchor bolt. It may cause cross threading, a condition in which a fastening screw does not engage correctly with a nut.

Discovered during predelivery inspection

During a predelivery inspection at a dealership on July 18, a Nikola employee discovered the shoulder anchorage on the passenger side seat belt was disconnected from the B-pillar adjuster. Nikola told Iveco, which said the final torque on the passenger seat belt shoulder anchorage was not installed to specification.  

Nikola will replace the components of the seat belt anchor assembly and the adjuster on all vehicles for free. The replacement component is narrower than the original, allowing the assembly to completely thread.

Customer and dealer letters about the defect will be mailed between Oct. 1 and Nov. 1.

The NHTSA recall number is 22V689.

Milton trial resumes Wednesday

Separately, the federal fraud trial for Nikola founder Trevor Milton resumes Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Dour market conditions, and possibly attention from the trial, dragged Nikola’s stock price 24.02% lower last week to close at $3.89 a share, just above its 52-week low of $3.82.

A short respite from rising oil and gasoline prices is about to end as 2022 comes to a close.  The reasons are numerous, but almost all of them relate directly to the supply chain.  Mainstream estimates suggest a return to $100 per barrel for the Brent which would inflate gasoline prices back to around $5 per gallon on average in the US.  These projections are likely conservative.

It should be noted that it's unusual for the mainstream financial media or mainstream analysts to suggest the idea of a renewed energy price spike.  With mid-term elections closing in, higher gas prices would put a damper on any chances democrats might have in maintaining a political majority.  Stagflationary pressures already top the list of public concerns in the US, far above social issues and geopolitical conflicts.  Higher energy costs would be more than unwelcome going into winter.

This is the reason why Joe Biden has been so exuberant about releasing oil supplies from the US strategic reserves for the past several months.  Biden's plan unleashed 1 million barrels per day into the supply chain and  is set to end in October.  The reserves are now depleted to the lowest levels since 1984, with gas prices STILL nearly double what they were when Biden entered the White House. It is essentially market manipulation at the expense of US strategic readiness and for the express purpose of political gain.

That said, Biden's ability to continue pouring oil onto the markets to keep gas prices down is dwindling, and even if he is able to continue the strategy past October, a red sweep in November would bring challenges and a freeze on reserves anyway.

Another factor is the failing attempts at a nuclear deal with Iran and the lifting of sanctions by the west.  The free flow of Iranian oil will not be happening anytime soon, leaving western access to a major oil pool off the table.

The next issue is the ever changing situation in the Ukraine war.  Russia is already receiving the brunt of the blame for global inflation, but this is clearly nonsense when we take into account the fact that inflation hit 40 year highs months before Russian invaded Ukraine and gas prices were rising well in advance of the conflict.  

The accusation may become true in certain respects, though, as Russia cuts natural gas supplies to Europe and the EU flails around this winter looking for replacement energy sources.  Europe's desperate search for oil, coal and gas will siphon supplies away from the global markets leaving all other countries with less.  The obvious result will be much higher prices for everyone.

There is also the issue of the stronger US dollar.  As the petro-currency, most oil around the world has been purchased in dollars which allows Americans to enjoy lower prices.  However, sanctions and economic tensions between east and west have led to a rising trend of bilateral trade agreements cutting out the dollar as the reserve currency.  Furthermore, the strong dollar has also led to turmoil in FX markets and in foreign currencies like the Japanese Yen, which may lead to increased dumping of US Treasury holdings by international creditors.  We could soon be facing a coordinated effort by central banks to crush the dollar even as the Federal Reserve seeks to strengthen the Greenback through interest rate hikes.

Barring a sudden crisis event such as an expansion of the war in Ukraine or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, oil prices are still set to rise as supply chain issues multiply.  

The Department if Energy plans to replenish strategic reserves by purchasing oil stocks into the future at prices set today.  The argument is that this will increase domestic oil production.  The problem is that this discounts inflation in production costs for shale oil drillers.  Set prices would only work as long as drillers can continue to make a reasonable profit.  If they can't, they will simply shut down.  By extension, the plan also assumes that drillers will be able to produce excess beyond market demand to sell to the government.  

If the government gets a first purchase arrangement, then drillers will not be able to supply as much oil to regular consumers and prices will continue to spike.  If the government does not get a first purchase contract, then any excess will probably be snapped up by European buyers.  Either way, general consumers will not enjoy any benefits of increased drilling if it occurs, and Biden's fraudulent green energy agenda will only restrict oil producers even more.  All in all, every observable factor suggests high oil and gas prices in the near term.   

By George Lei, Bloomberg markets live reporter and analyst

Chinese exports are poised to slow further in the remainder of 2022, with various high-frequency datasets pointing to cooling global demand. Exports, a key growth engine that has lifted the Chinese economy since the pandemic, are sputtering. That could bring more bad news for the yuan.

South Korean data in September through the 20th suggest exports to China fell 14% year-over-year versus a 1% decline in exports to the US. This may be an ominous sign that global demand for consumer goods made in China -- to which Korea provides inputs earlier in the supply chain -- is softening, Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics, wrote on Monday. Hong Kong’s exports also sank 14.3% in August, the most since the pandemic first began in early 2020.

Plunging freight rates also point to cooling exports: A 40-foot container from Shanghai to Los Angeles fetched $3,779 last week, below $4,000 for the first time since September 2020 and half what it was three months ago, Bloomberg reported. More declines are expected in the coming weeks, according to Drewry Supply Chain Advisors.

The news couldn’t come at a worse time, with the offshore Chinese yuan now trading at the weakest since May 2020 -- just a stone’s throw away from its record low -- and economists rushing to cut China’s 2023 economic-growth forecasts. Dollar-yuan may need to go a lot higher to boost China’s exports meaningfully; the Chinese currency has advanced versus most of Beijing’s trade partners, outside of the US and Hong Kong, for much of 2022.

Chinese exporters already are holding foreign currencies more tightly. The conversion ratio -- which measures the share of export revenues converted into yuan -- fell from 57% in the first eight months of 2021 to 36% this year through August, according to Macquarie economists Larry Hu and Yuxiao Zhang. If that ratio holds steady, an extra $118 billion could have been sold by exporters into yuan, Macquarie estimates.

Falling Chinese export volumes and expectations of a weaker yuan will only make exporters more reluctant to sell their dollars. The yuan’s downtrend isn’t likely to reverse unless that negative feedback loop is broken.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said on Saturday that she will not remain a Republican if former President Donald Trump is the GOP presidential nominee in the 2024 elections, and that she would also be willing to campaign for Democrats to stop GOP nominee Kari Lake from being elected in the Arizona gubernatorial race.

Cheney, who has been called a “Republican in name only” by others in her party and lost the Republican primary to Trump-backed challenger Harriet Hageman in August, made the comments at The Texas Tribune festival in Austin.

“I’m going to do everything I can to make sure Kari Lake is not elected,” Cheney said.

Former television anchor Lake, who is endorsed by Trump, won the Republican nomination in the Arizona primary election in August. Lake has been vocal in contending fraud in the 2020 election and has pledged to improve election security if she wins the gubernatorial race.

When asked by Texas Tribune CEO Evan Smith whether doing everything she can to ensure Lake is not elected included campaigning for Democrats, Cheney simply stated: “Yes.”

Cheney, who has become one of the most vocal voices in the Republican Party against former President Donald Trump, later added that she would not remain a Republican if he were to gain the party’s nomination in 2024.

“I’m going to make sure Donald Trump, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure he is not the nominee. And if he is the nominee, I won’t be a Republican,” Cheney said.

Cheney also mentioned Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has said he will campaign for Lake.

“He’s demonstrated that he’s somebody who has not bought into the toxin of Donald Trump—but he campaigned recently for Kari Lake, who’s an election denier, who is dangerous,” Cheney said.

...

Cheney announced in August that she’s considering running for president in 2024 but has not yet made a decision on the potential run.

“That’s a decision that I’m going to make in the coming months,” she said on Aug. 17 in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show, despite having just lost in the Republican primary for the seat she now holds.

Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump. She is also one of two Republican members sitting on the Democrat-led House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

...

Read more here...