Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In January 2023, 42-year-old Jenni Southerington reached a pivotal moment in her health. Skeptical about her prediabetes diagnosis, she started using a continuous glucose monitor. The device’s two-week data revealed unexpected morning glucose spikes despite strict fasting. Ms. Southerington found that certain foods would worsen her condition. “Eating a spoonful of rice had the same effect as half a cup,” she said.

Her experience underscores a growing trend of people without diabetes monitoring their blood sugar, either out of concern over disease or to optimize their health. But while these devices can offer valuable insight, many people may not need them and could suffer unneeded expense and stress from using them, experts warn.

CGMs Demystified

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are small, wearable devices that provide real-time data on blood sugar with a sensor typically placed on the arm or abdomen.

Unlike traditional fingerstick tests, CGMs don’t require repeated skin punctures. CGMs gauge glucose in the interstitial fluid—the fluid between body tissues. The collected data is wirelessly relayed to a user’s choice of device, be it to a smartphone app, a watch, or directly to an insulin pump, typically every five minutes or about 288 times a day.

“At their core, CGMs provide knowledge, and knowledge is power. Any person wearing a CGM can better understand how different foods and activities affect their glucose levels,” Dr. Andrew Demidowich, assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

Not everyone shares Dr. Demidowich’s enthusiasm.

The Central Role of Glucose in Metabolic Health

Glucose, a simple sugar, is a key fuel source for the body, but it creates problems if it builds up in the blood. High blood glucose is more than just a marker for diabetes—it’s a central player in poor metabolic health. Metabolic diseases, which include diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, are increasing globally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights that more than one-third of U.S. adults suffer from a cluster of conditions known as metabolic syndrome, which includes high blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels.

Processed foods, including refined grains and sugars, as well as an increasingly sedentary lifestyle are wreaking havoc on people’s metabolic health. The rise of diabetes and obesity have been linked to processed foods that cause significant spikes in blood sugar. And while exercise can help manage these effects, especially after eating, many people prefer more passive forms of entertainment.

Rapid fluctuations in glucose can stress the body and trigger inflammation, which can lead to chronic diseases such as heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers. Watching glucose levels can help people understand what improves their blood sugar level—and what makes it worse.

“I often tell my patients that we are all unique, and how one person’s sugar levels react to a certain food, like a banana or orange, may be completely different in how it may affect another person,” Dr. Demidowich said.

CGMs for All

CGMs were once limited to diabetes care. Initially vital for the 1.9 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes requiring daily monitoring, CGMs are now being used by a much broader demographic. This shift is significant in a nation in which an estimated 38 million people live with diabetes.

CGMs can provide real-time insights into the effects of lifestyle choices on glucose levels. Diet is just one of the many factors affecting glucose levels—exercise, stress, sleep, illness, dehydration, and pain also play significant roles.

More people are using CGMs as a way to self-optimize their health and make better decisions about food, physical activity, and more. The growing use of CGMs signifies a shift toward personalized, data-driven health and wellness strategies.

A 2018 Stanford University study, led by professor Michael Snyder, uncovered frequent and previously undetected blood sugar spikes in healthy individuals.

“There are lots of folks running around with their glucose levels spiking, and they don’t even know it,” Mr. Snyder said in a statement, underscoring the risk these spikes pose for cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance, a diabetes precursor.

The study, using CGMs on participants, suggests that even those without diabetes can experience significant glucose fluctuations.

“We think that these continuous glucose monitors will be important in providing the right information earlier on so that people can make changes to their diet should they need to,” Mr. Snyder said.

Echoing these potential benefits, a related study by George Washington University researchers found that 90 percent of CGM users reported shifts toward healthier living, with nearly 50 percent of them more inclined to exercise after noticing blood glucose spikes and 87 percent modifying their diets based on the feedback from their devices.

Dr. Demidowich has seen these effects himself, which is why he encourages patients with prediabetes to use the devices.

“I’m a big proponent of people with prediabetes wearing a CGM, even if just for a short time like 2 to 4 weeks, to better understand how to optimize their lifestyle and diet to avoid progression to diabetes,” he told The Epoch Times.

Real-time data can change patient behavior, he said.

“As providers, we can recommend cutting out sugary beverages or processed foods, but when patients see their sugar levels spiking in real-time, that becomes a powerful impetus for change.”

Too Much Information?

However, not everyone shares this enthusiasm for widespread CGM use. Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, senior faculty editor at Harvard Health Publishing, raises an issue with the devices’ utility for non-diabetics. He says there isn’t conclusive research demonstrating benefits for this group, pointing out that most people without diabetes naturally maintain normal blood sugar levels.

“Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should,” Dr. Shmerling wrote in an article. CGM use in the nondiabetic population may be premature and driven more by marketing than medical necessity, he cautioned. He noted that unnecessary monitoring could lead to false alarms, increased anxiety, and possibly harmful interventions.

Some people simply don’t know what healthy blood sugar looks like, and that can lead to confusion and fear, which can undermine, rather than improve, health.

Dr. Shmerling’s skepticism is echoed by 70-year-old Bob Volat, a Type 1 diabetes patient since age 59 who praises CGMs as a transformative tool in his health journey, calling them “an absolute gift.”

However, in a conversation with The Epoch Times, Mr. Volat questioned the utility of such advanced technology for nondiabetics, viewing it as overly complex and potentially motivated by profit. The devices aren’t cheap and he believes people may be swayed by aggressive marketing.

Rather than purchasing devices, he advises that people take a more holistic approach to health that goes beyond a singular focus on glucose levels.

Decoding Blood Sugar: Understanding Spikes and Glucose Tolerance

Prediabetes and diabetes are diagnosed based on specific blood glucose levels and A1C test results. The A1C test, measuring average blood sugar over two to three months, offers a comprehensive view of long-term glucose control.

Beyond these diagnostic benchmarks, there’s an increasing focus on the intricacies of blood sugar regulation, especially the health impacts of frequent sugar spikes, which CGM devices can adeptly identify.

Read more here…

The topic of China’s ownership of US farmlands is starting to boil over.

Six months after we reported that a “Bipartisan Bill Aims To Block Chinese Purchase Of US Farmland”, more are starting to pay attention yet as even Bloomberg notes that America “is seeing more and more of its most fertile land snapped up by China and other foreign buyers” the big problem remains: it’s difficult to know just how much farmland China has bought due to problem with how the US tracks such data.

Here’s what we do know: according to Department of Agriculture data foreign ownership and investment in US farmland, pastures and forests jumped to about 40 million acres in 2021, up 40% from 2016; but an analysis conducted by the US Government Accountability Office — a non-partisan watchdog that reports to Congress — found mistakes in the data, including the largest land holding linked with China being counted twice. Other challenges include the USDA’s reliance on foreigners self-reporting their activity.

As a result, foreign ownership of US cropland is drawing attention from Washington as concern rises about possible threats to food supply chains and other national security risks. And, as we reported last summer, lawmakers have called for a crackdown on sales of farmland to China and other nations.

“Without improving its internal processes, USDA cannot report reliable information to Congress or the public about where and how much US agricultural land is held by foreign persons,” the report said.

The GAO made six recommendations, including that the USDA share more timely and complete data with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, an interagency panel led by the Treasury Department that reviews foreign business deals. And yet, with typical bureaucratic “speed”, it is certain that none of these will be implemented for years, in the meantime allowing Chinese state and private oligarchs to keep snapping up fertile US farmland.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to review a case called Fischer v. United States, which experts say could weaken prosecutors’ hand in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, including former President Donald Trump’s, is already upending some defendant cases and sentencing proceedings.

In December, the Supreme Court decided it would take up the appeal by Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fisher of the Biden administration’s novel use of an Enron-era evidence-tampering law to prosecute hundreds of defendants for obstruction of Congress during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incident.

The obstruction of Congress charge—which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison—is the most widely charged felony in Jan. 6 cases, including against President Trump.

Mr. Fischer was indicted for various alleged offences for his role in the Jan. 6 incident, including obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, violent entry, and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds—and obstruction of Congress based on 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2), or “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”

This is an evidence-tampering provision that’s part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which experts say was conceived largely to curb wrongdoing on Wall Street—but is now used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Jan. 6 cases.

Mr. Fischer challenged the obstruction charge, claiming that 1512(c)(2) does not prohibit his alleged conduct on Jan. 6. A district court agreed but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit reversed that decision, siding with a broader reading of the provision, namely that it applies other forms of obstructive conduct, not just ones related to investigations and evidence.

While it’s unclear when the Supreme Court will hold the first hearings in Mr. Fischer’s appeal, several legal experts told The Epoch Times in earlier interviews that the high court is likely to find that 1512(c)(2) is being improperly used against Jan. 6 defendants.

If the challenge proves successful, the Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially erasing some charges against President Trump and overturning felony convictions for numerous Jan. 6 defendants.

The implications extend beyond individual cases to the core strategy employed by the Justice Department (DOJ) in securing convictions.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mr. Fischer’s challenge to the provision is already having an impact on some Jan. 6 cases.

Challenges Based on Supreme Court Review

Since the Supreme Court agreed in mid-December to take up the Fischer appeal, a number of Jan. 6 defendants have asked judges to pause their trials and sentencing proceedings pending the outcome of the case.

One of these is John Strand, a former underwear model convicted of obstructing Congress on the basis of 1512(c)(2), who describes himself as a “political prisoner.” He was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

On Jan. 19, Mr. Strand’s attorneys filed a motion for release pending the Fischer appeal and a motion for reduction of sentence based on the zero-point offender guideline, which gives defendants with no criminal history an extra two points off their sentencing calculations, court filings show.

The DOJ has taken the position that Jan. 6 defendants are ineligible for sentence reduction on the basis of the zero-point offender guideline, which has some exceptions, including for violent crimes.

Noteworthy in Mr. Strand’s filing is the singling out of the obstruction charge, which in his case is the only felony he’s been found guilty of.

“In particular, a substantial question exists as to whether the statute underlying Strand’s sole felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), applies to his conduct on January 6, 2021, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant certiorari in United States v. Fischer.”

While it’s too early to know whether the judge in Mr. Strand’s case will side with his request to reduce his sentence, several other Jan. 6 defendants have won early release based on the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Fischer case.

Early Release and Postponement

Last week, a federal judge ordered the early release of Thomas Adams, who was found guilty of two counts for his role on Jan. 6, including the obstruction charge, his sole felony.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta noted in his Jan. 10 order that Mr. Adams would probably have received a lighter sentence than the 14 months he was given (in addition to 36 months of supervised release) absent the obstruction charge.

While prosecutors argued Mr. Adams should be kept in jail, the judge disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is a “close question” at a minimum.

One day after Judge Mehta ordered Mr. Adams to go free, U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the release of Alexander Sheppard, who was previously sentenced to 19 months in prison for several misdemeanors and one felony (the obstruction charge).

Mr. Adams’s attorneys asked that he be released from prison at the end of his misdemeanor convictions, citing the pending Fischer appeal. The judge agreed, with the caveat that if the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Fischer and upholds his sentencing based on the obstruction charge, Mr. Sheppard may be required to serve out his full sentence.

“The Court will order Sheppard released after he has served six months in prison—on May 2, 2024. The parties shall contact the Court within three days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Fischer with their positions as to what if any further proceedings are necessary,” Judge Bates wrote in his order.

“The Court may ultimately conclude that a further period of incarceration is warranted upon a potential remand after a decision in Fischer,” the judge added.

Three other federal judges have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge, according to Politic, which cited a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington as saying that around 100 Jan. 6 defendants face charges in which 1512(c)(2) is the only felony charge.

The same law challenged by Mr. Fischer is instrumental in charges against President Trump. Should the Supreme Court limit or disagree with the Justice Department, it could have a significant impact on the former president’s trial, currently set for March, potentially leading to a retrial.

Concerns of Overreach

Defense lawyer Kira Anne West, who has been involved in more than 50 Jan. 6 cases, has accused the Justice Department of overreach in prosecuting some of the approximately 1,300 Jan. 6 cases.

Ms. West, who volunteered to defend dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, said during a recent C-SPAN “Booknotes” podcast that most of her Jan. 6 clients had neither a criminal history nor did they engage in any violence that day.

“Some simply went into the building, turned around, and went out,” she said. “Many were in for a very short period of time, less than 20 minutes. Yet the government is charging them with felony charges that you can get up to 20 years in prison for. That makes absolutely no sense to me.”

She said it’s unusual for so many minor cases to go to federal trial, calling it a waste of money.

“I think in my whole career, I’ve had one misdemeanor case in federal court before Jan. 6. Now, I have tons of them,” Ms. West said.

While she did not downplay whatever violence took place that day, saying it was a “serious crime” for people to attack police officers, she did say she saw the Biden administration’s approach to Jan. 6 cases part of a longstanding pattern of federal “overreach.”

“What I’ve experienced as a defense lawyer, which I’ve experienced for years, is that there is quite a bit of government overreach as far as who they’re prosecuting and what they’re charging them with,” she said.

Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses, told The Epoch Times in a recent interview that it is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with the felony obstruction charge that carries a 20 year sentence.

“I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to be very wary of this overcharging,” he said of the Fischer case that the high court will weigh.

Matthew Vadum contributed to this report.

In 1881, Otto von Bismarck proposed a radical idea for retirement: people above the age of 70 would be given a state pension, encouraging them to stop working.

This model has since been adopted en masse and most countries now have a retirement age, after which workers can claim benefits paid through years of their work.

However, modern-day retirement is much more than just finances. Wealth management company Natixis analyzed 44 nations on four main categories affecting the ability for their residents to retire well in the 2023 Global Retirement Index. Each category has subindices, from which they averaged scores out of 100 to create this ranking.

The categories are:

• Health: Per capita spend on healthcare, life expectancy, and non-insured health spend.

• Quality of Life: Happiness levels, water and sanitation, air quality, environment, and biodiversity.

• Material Well-being: Per capita income, income equality, and employment levels.

• Retirement Finances: Government debt, old-age dependency, interest rates, inflation, governance, taxes, and bank non-performing loans.

ℹ️ This index quantifies general retirement welfare in a country and does not account for countries which are retirement destinations—usually because of lower costs of living or better weather.

So, with one-third of the world expected to be 65 and older by 2050, how are countries stacking up against each other when it comes to creating supportive environments for retirement?

Of the countries analyzed for the best retirement conditions, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao and Niccolo Conte created the graphic below to highlight the top 25.

What Are the Best Countries for Retirement?

Norway ranks first as the best country for retirement in this study, helped by top scores in health and material well-being.

For health metrics, Norway was one of the few countries to see life expectancy improve over the pandemic. It now sits at 83.3 years at birth, and is one of the highest rates in the world. This is in contrast to many other countries in the index (Canada, Austria, the U.S.) that saw life expectancies drop recently due to the higher mortality rate during the pandemic.

For well-being, Norway’s current low unemployment rate (3.8%) reduces undue pressure on their social security net.

In fact, Norway along with the next top three countries (Switzerland, Iceland, and Ireland) all retain their rankings from last year, along with Estonia, which is ranked 25th. Every other country gained or lost a spot as seen below.

Other highlights in the top 25 include: Australia, at 7th, which is the highest-ranked non-European country in the index. The country scores well in retirement finances due to its superannuation pension fund system, currently worth $3.5 trillion, fifth-largest in the world.

Meanwhile, France, just outside the top 20, saw widespread protests in early 2023 when a law to raise the retirement age to 64 was passed through special constitutional powers. Raising the retirement age will presumably keep people working longer, paying mandatory payroll tax to fund retirement benefits, and will improve their steadily worsening old-age dependency ratio.

A worsening old-age dependency ratio is where the share of older, dependent people to younger, employed people keeps increasing, reducing the sustainability of retirement benefits.

How Countries are Preparing for the “Silver Tsunami”

France is not the only country trying to keep its population working longer. The Chinese government is also looking to raise its retirement age in gradual shifts, as it grapples not only with an aging population but also a declining one.

Immigration has also been frequently cited as a near-term measure to boost the working-age population and increase the benefits pool. Canada, for example, had 6 workers for every retiree in 1980. In 2015 that had dropped to 4. By 2030, it will drop further to 3. As a result the country has pursued aggressive immigration for more than a decade now and has grown its population by 10 million since 2010.

Finally, there has been a push towards increasing overall productivity by targeting technological advancements and automation. However both need to occur in tandem with re-skilling so that they don’t result in net job losses, which will only further burden social security systems.

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

To win the 2024 election as an independent, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is firstly hoping for an outright win, but the second path to victory is to make sure no other candidate wins 270 electoral votes.

If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes in a presidential election, the winner is decided in a contingent election by the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a bloc.

The House has picked the president twice in American history.

In 1800, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson were deadlocked after the electoral votes were counted. The House cast their ballots to elect President Jefferson, who received 61 percent of the popular vote.

When none of the four presidential candidates received an electoral vote majority in 1824, the House elected John Quincy Adams on Feb. 9 the following year.

“People are starting to realize that Bobby can win, with where he is in the polls,” Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the campaign manager of Mr. Kennedy, told The Epoch Times.

“They are starting to see that, for the first time in their lifetime, the two-party system can be broken and they can vote for somebody who excites them rather than having to vote for the lesser of two evils,” she said. Ms. Kennedy is also the candidate’s daughter-in-law.

Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Kennedy could be considered a preferred candidate over former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, the likely Republican and Democrat nominees.

The prospect of Mr. Kennedy winning as a compromise candidate is relatively slim because a contingent United States election is decided by state delegations. Republicans currently hold a four-vote delegation lead, according to a tally maintained by ProPublica.

The next House of Representatives, composed of lawmakers elected in 2024, would vote in a contingent election. A consensus forecast by 270toWin based on an aggregate of forecasts by five major analytics firms sees Republicans keeping their delegation majority in the House in 2024.

Few independent and third-party candidates have won electoral votes. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt ran as an independent against his former protégé, President William Howard Taft, after failing to win the Republican nomination.

President Roosevelt carried eight states and gained 27 percent of the popular vote but won just 88 electoral votes compared to Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435.

Independent candidate and former Alabama Gov. George Wallace won five states in 1968. He needed to prevail in only one more state with 10 or more electors to prevent Richard Nixon from an Electoral College majority.

In 1992, Ross Perot captured around 19 percent of the popular vote, won several counties, and placed second in two states, but he did not secure electoral votes in a race won by Bill Clinton over President George H.W. Bush.

Brian Seitchik, a Republican strategist and former Trump campaign staff member, told The Epoch Times that the strategy to capture enough electoral votes to send the presidential election to the House is “absurd.”

“It was talked about in 1992 when Ross Perot was running. It was talked about when George Wallace was on the ballot many years ago,” Mr. Sietchik said.

“It’s a fantasy that Republican nerds like to talk about—just like they like to talk about a brokered convention. We haven’t had a brokered convention since the 1960s, so these are just sort of political fantasies.”

David Carlucci, a former New York state senator and a Democrat strategist, told The Epoch Times that Mr. Kennedy faces a “daunting challenge” to get electoral votes.

“Regardless of your political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—it’s undeniable that the Electoral College poses challenges to an independent candidate. The strategy of winning states necessitates a precise campaign focused on specific demographics, leaving little room for candidates like RFK Jr. to impact safe red and blue states, which constitute the majority,” Mr. Carlucci said

“With fewer than 10 swing states, an independent candidate faces an uphill battle against the targeted efforts of Democrats and Republicans in these crucial areas,” he said.

Mr. Kennedy is traveling the country to private fundraising events and rallies designed to collect signatures to get him on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Read more here…

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Joe Biden told a group of mayors that they would be instrumental in implementing his Second Amendment policies, including a ban on some types of semiautomatic rifles, so-called “assault weapons.”

President Biden welcomed a bipartisan group of mayors attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting at the White House on Friday.

He told the mayors that the American Rescue Plan has spent $15 billion on infrastructure and public safety.

The president said much of that money went directly to cities to hire and equip police officers, institute violence intervention programs, and fund other crime prevention programs.

“You’ve done a tremendous job putting those resources to work. You know how to do it,” President Biden said. “Mayors are the people who get things done.”

He said that, at the urging of his staff, he is continuing his push for a revival of the 1990s-era “Assault Weapons Ban.”

The ban, which he said he helped the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) write, was in place from September 1994 to September 2004.

President Biden claimed the ban reduced violent crime, including mass shootings. That claim has motivated his administration to push for a renewal of the policy.

“My staff came to me and said, ‘We need a White House office dedicated to getting guns off the streets and treating the trauma from violence,” he said.

“I’m still committed to banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“When we passed the Second Amendment, guess what? You weren’t allowed to have a cannon.”

During his speech Friday, President Biden drew chuckles from the mayors as he derided an argument sometimes made by Second Amendment advocates against “assault weapons” bans.

“You’ve heard, ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots?’ Guess what, man? I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots out there walking around making sure that we have these weapons. If you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16. You don’t need an AR-15,” President Biden said.

The president’s remarks drew laughter from the mayors.

A Rand Corporation study completed in 2020 and updated in 2023 found limited evidence that “high capacity magazine” bans reduced mass shootings and inconclusive evidence on the effect of banning “assault weapons” on the incidents of mass shootings.

President Biden also touted the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” (BSCA) passed in June of 2022 as “the first gun safety law in 30 years.”

Under the BSCA, President Biden has issued numerous executive orders, directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to change or write many sometimes controversial rules, and established a “White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention” last September.

The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is led by Vice President Kamala Harris and staffed by veterans of the gun control movement. Stefanie Feldman, President Biden’s staff secretary, runs the office with Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox.

Previously, Mr. Jackson led the Community Justice Action Fund, which focused on the impact of violent crime involving guns on minority communities.

Mr. Wilcox worked at Brady, served on the Board of Directors of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and practiced law in New York City.

Recently, Ms. Harris announced the office’s “Safer States Agenda” to push similar programs at the state level.

“We’re deploying teams to meet with communities that have been victimized, to make sure they get the help they need,” President Biden told the mayors.

Russian gas giant Novatek said it had been forced to suspend some operations at its huge Baltic Sea fuel export terminal on Sunday due to a fire started by what Ukrainian media said was a drone attack, Reuters reported.

The giant Ust-Luga complex, located on the Gulf of Finland about 170 km (110 miles) west of St. Petersburg, is used to ship oil and gas products to international markets. It processes stable gas condensate – a type of light oil – into light and heavy naphtha, kerosene and diesel to be shipped by sea.

According to Reuters, it was not clear how long the disruption would last, how many tankers would have to idle outside the port, and what the knock-on effect would be on international energy markets.

The Interfax-Ukraine news agency said the fire was the result of a special operation carried out by Ukraine’s security services.

Major Russian gas terminal in Ust-Luga is non-operational following a drone attack. One of the two primary Baltic Sea energy-export outlets, it includes Rosneft oil terminal, gas, sulfur, and coal terminals. These attacks significantly challenge Russian logistics pic.twitter.com/S9NZNeGeit

— Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) January 21, 2024

“The Ust-Luga Oil terminal in the Leningrad region is an important facility for the enemy. Fuel is refined there, which, among other things, is also supplied to Russian troops,” it cited one source as saying. Of course, the fuel is also used to supply Europe where energy prices are now expected to spike as a result of this latest supply disruption.

“A successful attack on such a terminal not only causes economic damage to the enemy, depriving the occupiers of the opportunity to earn money to wage war in Ukraine, but also significantly complicates the logistics of fuel for the Russian military.”

While Reuters was not able to confirm that the fire resulted from a Ukrainian drone attack, it writes that if it did “such an attack would demonstrate Kyiv’s ability to conduct strikes deeper into Russia than usual using what are believed to be domestically produced drones at a time when it is on the defensive on the battlefield and struggling to secure as much Western financing as it wants.”

Such an attack, the latest in a spate of apparent strikes in recent days targeting Russian energy facilities, would also raise questions about the quality of Russian air defense systems around key infrastructure facilities.

The incident, along with what Russia says was a Ukrainian artillery strike on civilians in a Russian-held city in eastern Ukraine that left at least 25 dead, is sure to prompt broader Russian retaliation in a war which shows no sign of ending.

Alexander Drozdenko, the Leningrad region’s governor, said on the Telegram messaging app, that there had been no casualties at the Ust-Luga terminal and all workers had been safely evacuated. Russian news agencies reported that two storage tanks and a pumping station had been damaged, but that the fire had been brought under control.

Novatek, which is Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas producer, said in a statement it had suspended some operations after the fire which it said was the result of “external influence.”

“The technological process at Novatek-Ust-Luga has been stopped, and an operational headquarters has been established to eliminate the consequences. Damage assessment will be carried out later,” the company said.

Russian news outlet Shot reported that local residents had heard a drone operating nearby followed by several explosions.

Russia and Ukraine have targeted each other’s energy infrastructure in strikes designed to disrupt supply lines and logistics.  On Friday, a drone attack hit an oil depot in Russia’s western region of Bryansk, bordering Ukraine, for which Moscow blamed Kyiv. That came a day after an attack on a Russian Baltic Sea oil terminal that Russian officials said was unsuccessful.

Baza, a Russian news outlet known for its security services contacts, posted footage on Telegram on Sunday of large flames shooting into the sky over what appeared to be an industrial complex.

Incident at the “Novatek – Ust’-Luga” gas-condensate plant near St. Petersburg as it happened.

The plant now “temporarily” stopped operations after last night’s attack by unidentified flying objects. pic.twitter.com/zHsSCCUbEt

— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) January 21, 2024

Three international tanker ships were anchored near the Ust-Luga terminal, though there were no reports of damage to them from the fire, the St Petersburg-based Fontanka outlet said.

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels. pic.twitter.com/NLvWhehrd8

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) January 21, 2024

Drozdenko said a “high alert regime” had been introduced and that officials had gathered for an emergency meeting.
Novatek processed 3.4 million tons of stable gas condensate at the complex in the first half of 2023, according to the most recent data available, up 0.6% from the same period a year earlier.

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

Pennsylvania’s ban on adults under 21 carrying guns in public violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal court ruled on Jan. 18.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment, which says that “the people” have the right to “keep and bear arms,” applies to all adults, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit panel said in a split decision.

“The words ’the people’ in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18- to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote for the majority.

In a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the nation’s top court found that gun restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Pennsylvania law bars carrying guns in a concealed manner in public without a license. People under 21 cannot apply for a permit.

While most Pennsylvania adults are typically allowed to carry guns openly in public, only those who met certain criteria, such as having a license, were able to do so legally once a state of emergency was declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Those restrictions violated the constitutional rights of adults under 21, plaintiffs argued in a lawsuit filed in 2020.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled against them in 2021. He said that per guidelines outlined in a 2008 Supreme Court decision, the restrictions were “longstanding” and “presumptively lawful” and thus fell “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the other plaintiffs appealed, arguing the ruling was wrong. When the Supreme Court issued its 2022 ruling, the plaintiffs notified the appeals court. The 2022 ruling established that the right of adults to carry guns in public “is squarely protected by the Second Amendment” and Pennsylvania “has not carried its burden in proving that the State’s restrictions as to 18-to-20-year-olds are analogous to any historical restrictions,” the plaintiffs said.

Pennsylvania officials argued that the regulations still fell outside the scope of the Constitution, in part because adults aged 18 to 20 are not part of “the people” and should not be struck down.

Judge Jordan, in the new ruling, said that’s not true.

“18-to-20-year-olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among ’the people’ to whom Second Amendment rights extend,” he wrote.

That means Pennsylvania officials would have to identify historical laws that limited the population’s gun rights, and they did not do so, the judge added. In fact, an act passed by Congress shortly after the Second Amendment was ratified required all men to enroll in a militia when they turned 18. They were then armed.

“We understand that a reasonable debate can be had over allowing young adults to be armed, but the issue before us is a narrow one. Our question is whether the Commissioner has borne his burden of proving that evidence of founding-era regulations supports Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds’ Second Amendment rights, and the answer to that is no,” Judge Jordan said.

U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith joined with Judge Jordan. Both were appointed by former President George W. Bush, while Judge Stickman was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, appointed under former President Barack Obama, offered a dissent.

“There is no dispute that there is some age threshold before which the protection of the Second Amendment does not apply,” Judge Restrepo wrote, adding later that consultation with various sources led him to believe that “the scope of the right, as understood during the Founding-era, excludes those under the age of 21.”

The decision reversed the earlier ruling against the plaintiffs.

Reactions

The Firearms Policy Coalition cheered the new ruling.

“We applaud the Third Circuit’s decision in this case confirming that 18-to-20-year-old adults have the same right to armed self-defense as any other adult,” Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for the coalition, said in a statement. “If it wasn’t for 18-to-20-year-old adults being empowered to exercise their right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their communities, our nation wouldn’t exist–it would be a deep perversion of the Constitution to prevent them the same right today.”

“Today’s ruling ensures that these individuals have the ability to defend themselves during a state of emergency,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive director, added. The foundation was also part of the suit.

Other plaintiffs included Madison Lara, an adult under 21 who owns a rifle and handgun and said she wants to be able to carry them around for self-defense, and Logan Miller, another affected Pennsylvania resident who lawyers said has abstained from carrying guns to avoid being charged with a felony.

The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) was the named defendant in the case.

“PSP has no comment, as our attorneys are still reviewing the ruling,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email.

The office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Wobble, Then Soar?

Last weekend we went with “Weebles Wobble” and the week started with more “wobbling” for stocks.

Stocks seemed poised to break much lower on Wednesday but managed to claw back much of the early losses, and then took off on Thursday and Friday (the Nasdaq 100 gained 3.5% in those two days).

There was much to like about how stocks performed this week.

• This rally occurred even as markets priced in fewer rate cuts and moved rates higher across the curve.

  • According to Bloomberg’s WIRP function (World Interest Rate Probability), the chance of a March cut dropped to 47% from 79% last Friday.

  • Total cuts for 2024 went from 6.7 cuts (of 25 bps each) to “only” 5.4 cuts.

  • The 10-year yield went from 3.94% to 4.12%.

  • Stocks rallying as they downplayed the “Fed Pivot” is impressive.

  • My call remains 3 cuts (of 25 bps, 50 bps, and 25 bps), most likely starting at the April/May meeting and ending in July, though starting in March is far more likely than starting in June. I continue to believe that the Fed will want to be quiet on monetary policy at the September and November meetings as monetary policy is likely to become a campaign issue probably long before then. I still have a 4.3% target on 10s and 0 on 2s vs 10s but think I may be low on both.

• Earnings and the outlook for semiconductors seemed to be the biggest single spark. It wasn’t just AI (like many of the bumps have seemed to be driven by in the last year), but it was also more demand, and the outlook for more “mundane” chips bodes well for cell phones and other consumer goods! There has been a lot of worry about a slowdown in consumer spending, especially in some tech areas (I’m in that camp), but if that narrative is not true (and this week’s data point suggested that it is not), then that is a legit reason to be bullish.

• The consumer keeps spending and inflation is contained. I’m less convinced on the consumer, but have been a big believer that much of what drove inflation has changed direction – rather dramatically for goods, and just starting for services (see COVID Inflation Bumps).

  • Geopolitical, supply chain, reshoring, and even ESG are all putting upward pressure on inflation, so now is not the time to be complacent.

  • Having said that, the housing calculations in CPI are all but guaranteed to keep inflation lower. The lags missed it on the way up (IOER, the main measure of housing inflation, was the highest when all signs pointed to rents dropping in the real world), so we are seeing the impact of rent declines that occurred months ago showing up in the data today and somehow treating it as relevant.

  • University of Michigan’s CONsumer CONfidence had inflation expectation dropping. I know the Fed looks at that, so it is important, but I struggle to figure out the value of the data as a reliable predictor of anything.

I really liked that stocks could rally on good news, even as yields went higher, and some of the data makes me question my outlook on the economy over the coming months.

There are some things to pick on.

• Even after the bounce on Thursday and Friday, the Russell 2000 finished lower on the week. I haven’t been pounding the table for the so-called “laggards” since late December, but that inability to rally is striking. What I find very “odd” is that ARKK was down on the week. You can look at the major holdings and understand why (probably a peek at Bitcoin helps explain it too). But, for me, ARKK is one thing that I look to for signs of “aggressive” risk taking. I feel it should trade at a higher beta than the Nasdaq 100. Bitcoin was also weak, but I think that had more to do with far too many people running it up and positioning ahead of the launch of the ETFs.

  • On the bright side, there was differentiation indicating “thought” in the rally, though the negative, for me, is that we’ve reverted back, at least to some extent, to the trade that worked for much of last year. That seems too simple.

• Pricing out a recession. Interest rates are always tricky, but my view is that much of what occurred at the front end of the yield curve (the part driven by the Fed) resulted from far less concern of a recession. While I admit the data tilted in that direction, as a contrarian, I think the risk of something other than a “soft” or “no” landing is realistic. Stocks rose, even as rate cuts were priced out, because the market is back to “no” or “soft” landing as highly likely.

• I remain convinced that none of the issues that made markets wonder “Who Will Buy Treasuries Ever Again?” have been resolved and are likely to push longer yields higher, as those issues get more attention again. That is why I’m thinking that 4.3%, which seemed “bold” at 3.8%, seems insufficient here. Heck, 15 bps is like a day of trading.

• We seem back to a world where being right or wrong on a given day can be incredibly meaningful. Having to be “right” every day is difficult (impossible, or there would be more day-trading billionaires). It weighs on individuals (less so on algos). It does tend, over time, to cause risk management to reduce risk (though many will have done so of their own volition, to manage the topsy-turvy markets). So, one thing I don’t like about the price action (neither on up days, nor down days) is that it feels day-trader, or momentum, or simply “pile-on” driven, so the noise may be far greater than the signal.

Bottom Line

Still stuck on higher yields and less inversion. Really want to move to a 4.5% target on 10s.

Still believe that credit will do well, and that we will be talking about “new” ranges for credit soon.

On equities, the performance was almost enough to make me change my mind. The drivers of the strength were more impressive than the issues I point out. I am not there yet, but positioning has to be small to medium here, more use of options, and some nimble trading is required. Commodities, commodity stocks, and now Chinese stocks (for a trade) top the list of what I like, and I’m increasingly bullish the former and starting to pound the table on the latter. One call, that I don’t think you can disagree with, is that I’ve managed to work out of the Carolinas for the next 3 to 4 weeks, which seems like a good macro strategy, from my perspective!

The Fed meeting on January 31st could be interesting, since no one is really listening to what the Fed says until then. Powell effectively contradicted himself at the last meeting, so why listen to anything from the Fed until he speaks after their decision? Expect more “excessive” volatility in the meantime as the trading year and positioning get ramped up.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has lashed out at former President Trump over his Ukraine stance and recent rhetoric, particularly the GOP presidential front-runner’s claim that he can negotiate peace between Kiev and Moscow within 24 hours.

Trump’s persistent statements saying he would intercede diplomatically and end the war has been met with mockery among top Ukrainian officials. Zelensky in a fresh interview with UK’s Channel 4 News has called Trump’s rhetoric “very dangerous”. 

“Donald Trump, I invite you to Ukraine, to Kyiv. If you can stop the war during 24 hours, I think it will be enough to come,” he said in the interview published Friday.

“(Trump) is going to make decisions on his own, without … I’m not even talking about Russia, but without both sides, without us,” Zelensky continued. “If he says this publicly, that’s a little scary. I’ve seen a lot, a lot of victims, but that’s really making me a bit stressed.”

The Ukrainian leader added: “Because even if his idea (for ending the war) – that no one has heard yet – doesn’t work for us, for our people, he will do anything to implement his idea anyway. And this worries me a little.” It was within this context Zelensky followed by saying this is “very dangerous.”

Trump has repeatedly pledged while doing campaign rallies, “I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them.”

The Biden White House has so far resisted any serious efforts to get Moscow at the same table talking to the Ukrainian side, given that realistically it would involve having to make territorial concessions.

The US has only supported Zelensky’s plan, which demands that Russian troops immediately given up all seized territory in eastern Ukraine, relinquish Crimea, and pay war reparations to the Kiev government.

Zelensky and his top officials were at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos this past week pushing for more countries, and especially representatives of the Global South, to get behind the plan.

Donald Trump – after his victory in Iowa:

▪️We want peace through strength. Russia would never have attacked Ukraine, would never have done that. Putin and I get along great.
▪️The situation with Ukraine is so terrible. And we’re going to solve it, we’re going to solve it very… pic.twitter.com/TvmSKKScsI

— EHA News (@eha_news) January 16, 2024

Last week, Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak said that Kiev now believes it is crucial for China to be at the table for future talks on its peace formula. “China needs to be involved in talks to end the war with Russia,” the Ukrainian top representative said following diplomatic meetings related to the WEF. China remains the most influential Global South country widely viewed as squarely in Russia’s corner, having refused to rebuke Moscow or join Western-led sanctions after two years of the conflict.