Aggregator
In California, public safety loses to open-border theater
Shortages And Rationing Loom As Global Oil Reserves Fall At Fastest Rate In History
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
No matter what happens now, the world is facing a very painful energy crisis. Let’s be as wildly optimistic as we possibly can and assume that Iran agrees to allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz with absolutely no tolls or restrictions starting tomorrow. Before normal traffic through the Strait could resume, Iran would first have to remove all of the mines that they have laid in the Strait, and that could take months. Once all of the mines have been removed, it will take the tankers that are currently trapped in the Persian Gulf weeks to arrive at their destinations. Moving forward, Persian Gulf countries will be exporting much less oil and natural gas for the foreseeable future because of all the oil and natural gas infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed during the war. It will take years before all of that infrastructure is fully repaired and rebuilt. Meanwhile, global supplies of oil and natural gas will be very tight for an extended period of time..
What I have just laid out for you is the best case scenario.
Ultimately, what we end up facing could be so much worse.
Over the past couple of months, global oil reserves have been falling at the fastest rate ever recorded…
Record inventory draw: Global oil stocks have fallen by 246 million barrels in March-April, with draws in May hitting a record 8.7 million barrels per day.
Hormuz closure impact: The Strait of Hormuz shutdown has cut off 25% of the world’s seaborne oil, compounding already low reserves and boosting prices.
US price outlook: Analysts expect U.S. gasoline prices could reach $5 this summer unless flows resume, with relief unlikely before autumn.
Needless to say, this is not sustainable.
Here in the United States, the strategic petroleum reserve has been dropping at a record-breaking pace…
The SPR’s most recent drawdown, covering the week ended May 22, shows a drop of 9.1 million barrels, leaving the reserves at 365 million barrels. The previous weekly drawdown, covering the week of May 15, was its steepest on record — the U.S. withdrew 9.92 million barrels from the SPR then.
Before that record-breaking decline, the largest weekly drop in the SPR’s history occurred in the week ended Oct. 7, 2022, when the reserves dropped by 7.41 million barrels, and was connected to the war in Ukraine.
Commercial oil inventories are being rapidly depleted as well.
At some point the tanks are going to hit minimum operating levels and we are going to have an enormous crisis on our hands.
The chief economist at Capital Economics is projecting that commercial oil inventories “could reach critically low levels by the end of June”…
“At the current pace of drawdown, commercial oil stocks could reach critically low levels by the end of June,” Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a research note on May 18.
If supply conditions don’t improve soon, “prices could rise sharply,” Shearing warned.
Jeff Currie is warning that Asia is already very close to minimum operating levels, and he is projecting that the U.S. could potentially be dealing with shortages in July…
Oil markets are nearing minimum operating levels in Asia, with Europe likely next and the U.S. potentially facing shortages by July, said veteran market strategist Jeff Currie on Monday, underscoring the global energy shock due to the Iran war.
Headline global inventory figures can be misleading as much of the oil stored worldwide cannot be used immediately, said Currie, Carlyle’s chief strategy officer of energy pathways and co-chairman of Abaxx Markets.
A large portion of that oil is needed to keep pipelines and storage systems running safely, leaving only a smaller share available for the market. Asia is already close to these so-called “minimum operating levels,” Currie told CNBC on the sidelines of the UBS Wealth Conference in Singapore.
This is really happening.
The Australian government is so concerned about what is ahead that they have already prepared a plan to limit the amount of fuel each vehicle can purchase per day when that becomes necessary…
Contained in documents obtained by Guardian Australian under freedom of information, one option the government had at its disposal to arrest a local fuel supply shortage would be to impose a “maximum transaction value per vehicle per day” – a rationing rule which would limit how much fuel a single vehicle can buy at a service station over a 24-hour period.
If the Strait of Hormuz does not get reopened, we could eventually see similar measures get implemented all over the world.
Of course rationing of motor oil has already started…
Nissan is rationing 5W-30 and 0W-20 Nissan Genuine Motor Oils. Starting this week, Nissan’s stock of these oils has dropped by 30% year-on-year. With only 70% left in the tank, the brand is already taking precautions, sending memos to dealers to manage its stock during the shortage.
The brand will prioritize certain owners, such as those claiming “warranty, extended warranty, recall repairs, goodwill, and prepaid maintenance,” according to Kim Less, the vice president of aftersales at Nissan Americas, in the bulletin addressed to Nissan dealers.
“Given these constraints, it is critical to prioritize the use of Nissan Genuine 0W-20 (and 5W-30, where applicable) for warranty, extended warranty, recall repairs, goodwill, and prepaid maintenance,” Kim Less, vice president of aftersales, Nissan Americas, said in the May 15 bulletin to Nissan dealers.
I would encourage my readers to stock up on motor oil while they still can.
Supplies are only going to get tighter from this point forward.
The pharmaceutical industry is also very dependent on raw materials from the Middle East, and one pharmacist is claiming that the current drug shortage is the “worst I’ve ever known”…
Some people living with heart conditions, stroke risks, eye infections and bipolar disorder are among those unable to get the medications they rely on, a pharmacist has said.
Graham Jones, who owns Shrivenham Pharmacy in Oxfordshire, said vital medication like aspirin was harder to obtain because of surging global prices and government funding which was not keeping up with costs.
Jones said the current medication shortage was the “worst I’ve ever known”.
Personally, I am even more concerned about the global fertilizer shortage.
The UN is telling us that we could be facing a worldwide food crisis that could last for “years”…
The de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz risks a global food crisis that could extend for years, the UN warned.
Global fertilizer companies have slashed production over shortfalls of sulphur, required to make many farming inputs; about half of the global supply passed through the strait before the Iran war.
As a result, farmers are likely to produce lower yields in coming harvests. Richer economies like those in Europe are mulling building fertilizer stockpiles, reducing duties on imports, and onshoring production, but poorer ones have limited room to adapt.
I want to be very clear about what lies in front of us.
No matter what happens now, there will be shortages and rationing.
It is just a matter of how intense they will be and how long they will last.
Needless to say, the outlook for the global economy in the months ahead is not promising at all.
We really do have a major crisis on our hands, and it will become a historic nightmare if the Strait of Hormuz does not get reopened soon.
Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.
Tyler Durden Sat, 05/30/2026 - 22:10Trans track athlete AB Hernandez wins state championship medal as protests mount outside stadium
Demoted Tobias Myers could return to Mets as starter with ‘scripted’ program in minors
UCLA baseball completes another miracle comeback to save season
Meet The Woke Vegan "Christian" Democrat Senate Candidate From Texas
For at least a decade the progressive movement has been obsessed with infiltrating every aspect of American life and culture, even going so far as co-opting Christian churches in an attempt to claim them as "safe spaces" for woke ideology. This might sound odd to those who grew up in the devoutly atheist era of liberalism, but those days are long gone and seem quaint in comparison to today's cavalcade of circus freaks.
Well, despite their crushing defeat in 2024 the parade of unhinged woke Democrats has not abated. In fact, it seems to be getting worse. Numerous democratic socialists are running for office in blue states and cities and some are unseating more centrist Democrat incumbents. The party is being overrun with far-left fanatics, a predictable outcome when one accepts the fact that leftists never admit they are wrong and always double down.
A prime example, maybe the most egregious example, is James Talarico - A Democrat candidates for US Senate in Texas. Talarico is a former middle school teacher and Presbyterian seminarian who has served in the Texas House of Representatives since 2018. Talarico has ties to an NGO called Leadership for Educational Equity (LEE), which coaches potential civic leaders in far-left ideology.
Though, the candidate is best know as the aspiring woke pastor who argued that God is "non-binary" in defense of trans athletes (men pretending to be women) stealing trophies and scholarships from real women.
It's important to remember that 2021 was the pinnacle of the woke movement in US politics. The Biden Administration opened the floodgates to DEI cultism in politics and ideologues in the Democratic party were rushing to signal their virtue. In other words, politicians operating in this time period where showing their true Marxist colors for the world to see. They believed they had won.
Talarico's hot takes ran the gamut, showcasing an unhinged zealotry and a disturbing attempt to blend LGBT and Equity talking points into Christian doctrine. He has since attempted to distance himself from some of his more meme-worthy claims, but the internet is forever. His run is against Republican candidate Ken Paxton, who is now famous for unseating GOP incumbent John Cornyn in a landslide and sending a message that Trump owns the party.
Talarico opposed Voter ID in 2021, which is noteworthy today because around 80% of American voters say they support the requirement in order to protect the integrity of elections from foreign influence.
Here’s James Talarico 🏳️🌈 saying he opposes voter ID in 2021
Keep in mind, voter ID is something both Dem and GOP voters agree on. pic.twitter.com/5OzRTfIqQ3
He refers to women as "neighbors with a uterus" in order to avoid offending trans women.
What does James talarico call women?
"neighbors with a uterus" pic.twitter.com/aRO4nLi5GQ
He referred to the American flag as a 'complicated symbol' that had been 'co-opted and betrayed', which was a common narrative pushed by leftists during the Biden Administration as a means to capture "patriotism" away from conservatives and paint them as a "threat to democracy."
James Talarico: “The American flag is such a complicated symbol for most of us.” pic.twitter.com/zcMowHvZeL
— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) May 25, 2026Talarico then argued that the Bible 'is silent' when it comes to abortion. He has apparently never heard of the 6th Commandment.
James Talarico: “I trust women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don’t think that’s a place for government. That’s a belief I hold not despite my faith, but because of my faith. Jesus never talks about abortion. The Bible is silent on abortion.” pic.twitter.com/dalwu6JP6F
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 26, 2026And, maybe the most embarrassing sin of all for a Texan, Talarico promotes veganism (of course he does). He justifies his crusade against meat in the name of fighting man-made climate change (which does not exist).
Talarico is not a cowboy after all…turns out he is a Vegan pic.twitter.com/eaXZStUgzJ
— realstephaniegaddis🦋🌺 (@stephanegaddis) May 27, 2026The Senate candidate, as a Democrat project, represents an interesting beta test. Can the party bleach the history of a woke cultist and present him as a down-home country loving BBQ eating Christian patriot who just happens to be running on the blue side of the aisle? It's highly unlikely, but this strategy is popping up all over the country.
Democrats are elevating many white-male prospects who present as vaguely populist (and vaguely straight), and they are turning away from overt DEI and BLM. The DNC has dumped tens of millions of dollars into Talarico's campaign so far. But the organization is so saturated with woke that it's impossible for them to find any candidates without a long list of absurd leftist positions in their past.
So, like Talarico, these campaigns have to hide or gloss over their uncomfortable histories in order to ever have a chance of competing in a red state.
One cannot separate Talarico from his far-left rhetoric. He said those things because he believed them, and no doubt he believes them to this day. Leftists always double down. They might lie in order to win an election, but they'll double down after they get what they want. Talarico is not so much a "Trojan Horse" as he is the candidate Democrats had to settle for.
Tyler Durden Sat, 05/30/2026 - 21:35Pirates star Brandon Lowe denied ABS challenge — then gets ejected in wild scene
During crises, Democrats perform; Republicans lead
Over one thousand Marilyn Monroe lookalikes swarm Palm Springs in World Record attempt
Argument escalates to subway stabbing at Brooklyn station: NYPD
Capitol Hill suddenly silent on the destructive impact NIL has had in college sports
USC baseball rides early offensive barrage to victory in NCAA elimination game
Three Debates Americans Have Had For 250 Years
Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,
George Washington rode west from Philadelphia in command of 13,000 troops on a mission that would test his leadership unlike any previous campaign.
These men were not soldiers in the Continental Army. They were citizen militiamen—forerunners of the National Guard—called up from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. And Washington was no longer simply a general. He was president of the United States.
The year was 1794, and Washington had made one of the most fateful decisions of his presidency: to use armed force against fellow Americans.
Congress, desperate for revenue to pay war debts, had enacted a tax on whiskey. Grain farmers in Western Pennsylvania saw the tax as immoral and unjust.
Protestors attacked revenue agents, destroyed the property of tax-paying farmers, and fired shots that killed a local militiaman.
Growing bolder, they fashioned banners on “liberty poles” with slogans like “Equal Taxation and no Excise” and “Liberty or Death.”
For two years, Washington searched for a peaceful resolution. But when 5,000 rebels gathered outside Pittsburgh, vowing to take the city, he knew the time for action had come.
In the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was anticlimactic, resulting in no further violence.
Yet more than 200 years later, Americans still strenuously disagree on basic questions of government.
When is a president justified in mobilizing the National Guard? At what point does a protest become an insurrection? What counts as free speech?
Some fundamental issues were settled at the nation’s founding, a panel of scholars told The Epoch Times. But more were left unsettled. And Americans continue to debate those same issues today.
Unanswered QuestionsAmerica will be governed by the people. The Declaration of Independence established that, and the Constitution ratified it.
Abraham Lincoln later distilled the American creed to just 10 words in his Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
But what does that mean?
“The question is: Who are the people?” David A. Bateman, an associate professor of government at Cornell University, said.
The first states couldn’t agree on the polarizing issue of slavery, so they omitted a definition of citizenship from the Constitution, Bateman told The Epoch Times. Citizenship wasn’t defined until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified after rigorous debate.
“The Framers wrote a very brief, cogent, succinct document, and left a lot unsaid,” J. Edwin Benton, a professor of political science and public administration at South Florida University, said.
“They intended that future generations could take these basic precepts and expand on them,” Benton told The Epoch Times.
Here are three things Americans still argue about.
How Much Power Do Presidents Have?President Donald Trump mobilized the Illinois National Guard in October 2025, saying federal facilities there had come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing immigration law enforcement.
Trump cited a federal law authorizing the president to deploy the National Guard to suppress an invasion or revolt, or to enforce the law when regular authorities can’t.
Two days later, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and others filed a federal lawsuit, arguing Trump’s order infringed on the sovereignty of Illinois.
The Supreme Court agreed, saying the administration failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.
Trump is not the first U.S. president to be accused of abusing his power.
Debates about the limits of presidential authority go back to the very beginnings of the presidency, Matthew Wilson, an associate professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, told The Epoch Times.
“Hamilton and Jefferson had very different ideas about the centrality and desirability of executive power in our political system, and that continues to be a flash point,” Wilson said.
Hamilton favored a stronger executive. Jefferson preferred a weaker role. A hundred years later, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft continued debating the same issue.
Roosevelt thought all the white space in the Constitution should be filled by the president.
“It was not only [a president’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws,” Roosevelt wrote in his autobiography.
Taft held the opposite view. He read the Constitution like a pharmacist reads a prescription.
“The President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant,” Taft wrote. Each right had to be spelled out in the Constitution or in an act of Congress.
Most presidents have sided with Roosevelt. Many have been checked by Congress or the Court, and widely criticized by their opponents.
Presidents Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Biden all also joined Trump in having their executive actions blocked by the Supreme Court.
When Jefferson pushed the boundaries of the office by making the Louisiana purchase without first getting congressional approval, John Adams said Jefferson had become the most federalist of the Federalists. That was meant as an insult, implying that Jefferson had abandoned his own principles and switched sides.
Andrew Jackson was censured by Congress for manipulating fiscal policy after moving funds from the national bank to state banks.
Critics called the 16th president “King Lincoln” for his expansive use of power during the Civil War, including suspending habeas corpus and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
Opponents of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal called it a “Fascist regimentation.”
“This is not just a story about Donald Trump,” Wilson told The Epoch Times. “This is a much longer-running pattern in American history.”
What’s the Role of the Supreme Court?The Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, overturning what had been seen as a right to abortion in the United States.
Protesters gathered in the sweltering heat to voice their displeasure.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) later called for the Court to be expanded to 15 members “in the wake of recent rulings upending decades of precedent.” Others have called the current panel a “post-legitimacy court.”
Yet 50 years earlier, Roe v. Wade had sparked an outcry by overturning longstanding state laws prohibiting abortion.
Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the decision smacked of “judicial legislation.” Others labeled it judicial activism.
Justice Byron White said the Court had simply fashioned “a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers.”
Americans have disagreed with Supreme Court decisions for centuries.
The Constitution devotes only 378 words to the Supreme Court, a fraction of that given to the other branches. Over the years, the Court has filled out that job description for itself.
For example, Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which gives the Court the right to determine whether laws or presidential actions violate the Constitution.
Andrew Jackson refused to enforce Worcester v. Georgia in 1832. Lincoln did the same with the Ex parte Merryman decision in 1861.
Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding six justices to the Court in 1937—a move widely seen as an attempt to change its ideological balance.
More recently, Joe Biden, as president, called for Congress to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices.
The Supreme Court was supposed to be the quiet branch of government, according to David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University.
“To quote Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court would be the ‘least dangerous branch,’” Schultz told The Epoch Times.
But the Court often has to deal with the white space in the Constitution, and that’s nearly always controversial, he said.
How ‘Free’ Is Free Speech?Riley Gaines, a former collegiate athlete and advocate for reserving women’s sports to biological females, was invited to speak at San Francisco State University in April 2023. Protestors disrupted the event and then accosted Gaines as she tried to leave campus.
A month earlier, a conservative federal judge’s talk at Stanford Law School was interrupted and cut short by student protestors. Judge Kyle Duncan had been invited to speak by the campus Federalist Society. Turning Point USA and Heritage Foundation decried those incidents as attacks on free speech.
In April 2024, Asna Tabassum, valedictorian of the graduating class at the University of Southern California, was not permitted to speak at commencement due to safety concerns. The cancellation came after pro-Israel groups alleged that Tabassum had promoted anti-Semitic views and advocated for abolishing the state of Israel.
In 2025, New York University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology disciplined student speakers who made unauthorized remarks at commencement speeches. Both students characterized action of war in the Gaza Strip as genocide. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and human rights group PEN criticized the universities’ actions as threats to free speech.
The very concept of free speech was sparked by an event similar to our contemporary clashes over free expression.
“The idea carries over from the trial of John Peter Zenger,” Schultz said.
Zenger was tried for libel in 1733—more than 40 years before the Declaration of Indepencence—after printing a newspaper critical of the New York governor. The jury acquitted Zenger.
That established the freedoms of speech and the press that were later included in the Constitution.
But there are some limits, said Ken Kollman, a professor of politics at the University of Notre Dame.
“Courts have long drawn lines between speech that is constitutionally protected and speech that is not,” Kollman told The Epoch Times.
Drawing those lines has often sparked controversy.
In 1798, with America on the brink of war with France, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
These laws authorized the president to deport non-citizens or to imprison them during wartime. Another law made it a crime to “print, utter, or publish ... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government.
Bateman sees echoes of this today in the deportation of activists with unpopular views.
“Everybody supports free speech in principle,” Wilson said. “The question is: who is willing to support it in practice when it becomes difficult or inconvenient or offensive?”
Signs of Good HealthIs free speech working well today? No, says Kollman. “We are living in a moment when the once-shared notion of protecting open and free debate is being eroded by our partisan [and] other social divisions.”
But we need robust debate, the scholars agreed. The future of the country depends on it.
“Encouraging, fostering, and protecting institutions and processes that encourage open and free debate are all vital for the survival of a liberal democracy,” Kollman said.
“Embrace conflict. Embrace heated, unconstrained argument. And stop trying to impose an etiquette about what it should look like—whose primary function is to constrain it,” Bateman said.
Said Wilson, “Americans ought to think about their responsibility as citizens.
“One of the Founders’ clear beliefs was that the Republic could survive and be healthy only if it had a virtuous, informed, and engaged citizenry.”
Tyler Durden Sat, 05/30/2026 - 21:00