86.1 F
Chicago
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Home Blog Page 30

Shortages And Rationing Loom As Global Oil Reserves Fall At Fastest Rate In History

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 – 22:10

Meet The Woke Vegan “Christian” Democrat Senate Candidate From Texas

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.

He refers to women as “neighbors with a uterus” in order to avoid offending trans women.  

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.” 

Talarico then argued that the Bible ‘is silent’ when it comes to abortion.  He has apparently never heard of the 6th Commandment. 

And, 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).

The 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 – 21:35

Three Debates Americans Have Had For 250 Years

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 Questions

America 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 Health

Is 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

Bondi Claims DOJ Produced ‘Everything Required’ In Epstein Files Release

Bondi Claims DOJ Produced ‘Everything Required’ In Epstein Files Release

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) acted in a transparent manner and acted appropriately in releasing files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, as she testified before Congress on Friday.

“To the best of my knowledge, the Department produced everything required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Bondi said in a statement ahead of a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee.

She added that “justice and transparency in this matter have been delivered at the direction of President [Donald] Trump and his administration,” according to a written copy of her opening statement on Friday.

Bondi told lawmakers in her opening statement that then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general, had overseen the process to release the Epstein case files as mandated by a law passed by Congress and signed by Trump last year.

The former attorney general said it was “an enormously complicated and labor-intensive process” and added that the DOJ had made redaction errors during the process. However, she mostly defended the DOJ’s work and said that it had complied with the law and demonstrated “an unprecedented commitment to transparency.”

Democratic lawmakers said that Bondi’s interview should have been televised, with Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) saying on Friday on Capitol Hill that Democrats are “incredibly disappointed of the decision” not to have Bondi’s interview recorded and “released to the American public.”

Another, Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Calif.), alleged that Bondi was “instrumental in the Epstein files cover-up,” without elaborating. “She must explain who ordered the delays [and] who approved the redactions,” he said.

But Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the head of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters that the interview with Bondi on Friday will be released to the public as quickly as possible.

“You’ll know everything that’s been asked” if there are questions, he told reporters at the Capitol before the hearing started. “We’ll release all the transcripts, and if anyone is lying to Congress, that’s a felony,” he also said.

Earlier this week, Bondi confirmed to CNN and other media outlets that she was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer and received treatment, including surgery, for the disease.

Bondi was replaced by Trump in early April with Blanche, who was the president’s former personal attorney before he was tapped to join the administration. At the time, Trump and Bondi said that she would be working in the private sector.

Officials with the New York City medical examiner’s office ruled that Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while he was on trial on sex trafficking charges. Maxwell, a British socialite, was convicted in 2021 of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein and is now serving a 20-year term in a federal prison.

The DOJ was tasked with releasing files related to Epstein and Maxwell under a measure, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, that was passed in Congress and signed into law by Trump. Previously, some lawmakers had accused the department of not releasing all the files or slow-walking the process.

Blanche, who was involved with overseeing the release of the files, said earlier this year that more than 3 million pages were released, noting that a significant amount of work was required to issue redactions of witness names, among other procedures, before the files were disseminated to the public.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 19:50

The Democrat Establishment Is Starting To Worry About Spencer Pratt

The Democrat Establishment Is Starting To Worry About Spencer Pratt

The last person California Democrats expected to keep them up at night is Spencer Pratt. Yet here we are.

The former reality television personality-turned-independent mayoral candidate has spent the past several weeks doing something that Los Angeles’s political establishment convinced itself was impossible: making incumbent Mayor Karen Bass look vulnerable.

Conventional wisdom held that a candidate like Pratt, a former television personality with no governing experience, running as an independent in a deep-blue city, had no realistic path to victory. The conventional wisdom was wrong, or at a minimum, it failed to account for how much patience voters had actually lost with the Democratic Party’s incompetence.

At some point, even reliable Democratic constituencies reach a limit for how much they can tolerate. Bass may be finding out precisely where that limit sits.

Between April 19 and May 15, Pratt’s campaign has raised roughly $2.7 million. Over that same stretch, Bass pulled in just $282,000. Bass has been raising money since 2024, and her total haul since then is approximately $2.8 million. Pratt nearly matched it in less than a month.

The two candidates are now separated by less than $100,000 in cash on hand, with Pratt sitting on roughly $1.42 million and Bass on approximately $1.32 million.

The money story alone would be enough to rattle the machine. The polls are another story. Pratt has been performing well in the polls, with Bass only leading by single digits in recent surveys, which means Pratt could advance to a runoff with Bass.

In a city where Democratic registration is so overwhelming that Republican candidates don’t bother showing up on general election ballots, this is a huge red flag for the Bass campaign.

The Democrat establishment has heard the message loud and clear and is starting to panic. On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an endorsement of Bass – just five days before the primary.

“The work Karen Bass is doing in Los Angeles is making our entire state stronger, with an 18% decline in homelessness while it grew nationally, historic drops in violent crime, boosting film production in L.A., and protecting our communities against ICE. She has my full support for reelection,” Newsom said in a statement.

Whatever the merits of the endorsement’s substance, its timing speaks for itself. It reeks of desperation.

If no candidate receives a majority on the June 2nd election, a runoff election will be held on November 3rd. Newsom, making an endorsement in the race’s final days, is clearly hoping to boost Bass and avoid a runoff.

Pratt was unimpressed by Newsom’s 11th-hour endorsement. He responded by calling Newsom and Bass “alleged criminal partners,” tying them together through their shared record on the catastrophic January wildfires and the city’s homelessness crisis.

“It’s not shocking because their alleged criminal partners, not only did they work together in their negligence and burning down 7,000 houses and 12 people alive, but they’re both complicit in laundering, what, 24 billion dollars to actually increase homelessness,” Pratt said.

He went further, attacking the homelessness statistics Newsom cited and accusing both Newsom and Bass of making them up.

“Those are not real numbers,” Pratt insisted. “Anybody with eyeballs in the state of California or Los Angeles knows that there has not been a reduction in one homeless person. Actually, there’s been an increase of naked drug addict zombies in front of every kid’s playground, every kid’s school, every coffee shop.”

“They both should be in jail together,” he added.

A runoff now appears likely, and Pratt heads into it with momentum, money, and a message that is clearly resonating.

November represents more than a municipal race. It’s a test of whether California’s progressive one-party model can withstand sustained confrontation with its own results.

The Democrat establishment has reason to worry. The polls and the fundraising say so.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 19:15

Green Retreat: California Eases Carbon-Market Costs For Oil Refiners

Green Retreat: California Eases Carbon-Market Costs For Oil Refiners

California’s green-energy regime has hollowed out the state’s refining and oil industry, leaving motorists paying the highest gasoline prices in the country. AAA data show the state gasoline average now north of $6 per gallon, compared with a national average of roughly $4.36 as of Saturday morning.

The result of political blowback in California over unaffordable gasoline and diesel prices at the pump is a retreat from left-wing climate policies that could offer relief to motorists, Bloomberg News reports.

On Friday, the California Air Resources Board voted to create up to $4 billion in free carbon allowances for oil refiners and other industrial polluters. This will help them more easily comply with the state’s greenhouse gas limits under the Cap-and-Invest program.

Earlier this year, CARB proposed further tightening emission limits by removing 118 million allowances from the market to keep the state on track to meet its 2030 climate targets. For refiners, that would mean further reducing emissions or paying more for allowances, with mounting costs already pushing them out of the state

The move will help contain gasoline prices at the pump and prevent refiners from leaving the state, especially after energy disruptions in the Gulf region pushed California gasoline prices above $6.

Take US oil giant Chevron, which recently warned that California is careening toward an energy crisis because of the Iran war, and that the company may quit refining oil in the state unless officials roll back taxes and regulations.

California is highly exposed to the disruption rippling through commodity markets, as it imports about 20% of its refined fuels from Asia. But as extensively discussed here, oil product shipments from China, South Korea, Singapore, and elsewhere have been disrupted, leaving Asian nations struggling to meet domestic demand, let alone export to California.

Chevron’s oil refining head Andy Walz recently warned that the potential for fuel shortages in California is his worst fear: We have refineries in Asia that are having to cut crude, and so they’re going to make fewer products,” Walz said in an interview in late March. “What if San Francisco doesn’t have the jet fuel it needs? Or Los Angeles? Or maybe gasoline?”

Since California is disconnected from the U.S. fuel-making centers of Texas and Louisiana, it is essentially an energy island.

Walz noted in March, days after the U.S.-Iran conflict broke out, that tightening California’s cap-and-invest program “made no sense when you look at global tensions right now.”

California’s green regime has produced nothing but disastrous consequences for households, making fuel prices the highest in the nation:

There are national security implications stemming from the green regime, especially for the state with the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel and national security activity.

The retreat on climate targets by state regulators is a win for consumers and the nation, as green is nothing more than inflationary and degrowth, hitting working-poor households the hardest with unaffordable gasoline and diesel prices at the pump.

Elsewhere, the US-Iran conflict has forced left-wing states such as New York, Massachusetts, and others to dial back unrealistic climate ambitions.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 18:05

Caught On Tape: Washington Nationals Official Admits To Discriminating Against Religious Player

Caught On Tape: Washington Nationals Official Admits To Discriminating Against Religious Player

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Washington Nationals Director of Community Relations Sean Hudson has been caught on camera admitting that he discriminates against starting pitcher Trevor Williams because of his Catholic faith.

The Daily Caller reports that O’Keefe Media Group has released a new undercover report where Hudson admits that the team avoids featuring starting pitcher Trevor Williams on social media because of his 2023 criticism of the Dodgers’ Pride Night.

That particular event honored a drag group dressed as nuns and performing on a crucifix that Williams called a mockery of Catholicism.

According to Fox News, in a 2025 interview with Bishop Robert Barron, Williams explained why he spoke out, saying, “Baseball stadiums should be a place where everyone feels welcomed, like 100%. We should all feel welcomed there. But that was clearly against one certain religion. If you don’t draw the line in the sand, who’s gonna do it?

Hudson described Williams as “super Christian-Catholic” with religious tattoos, and confessed that even lighthearted social media posts—for example, ones asking “Is a hot dog a sandwich?”—avoid including Williams because he spoke out.

Hudson also admitted on hidden camera to digitally surveilling fans who attend Nationals Park, saying, “If you ever come to a Nats game, there is someone on our team who’s responsible for figuring out everything about you, given your purchasing habits, what teams you come to when the Nats play, like what teams you come, and assigning you into a bucket of people and then catering content to you.”

The Daily Caller reports that Hudson told the undercover reporter that if a team supporter accepts online cookies “we’re getting your, a plethora of your Google history.”

In the video, the Nationals executive also described himself as “very far-left leaning” and admitted that he has a “Join the Communist Party” poster in his kitchen.

After the video came to light, Hudson deleted his X account, changed his Instagram, and denied the comments when confronted.

Hudson has since been removed from the team’s front office page amid online calls for boycotts and claims of religious discrimination.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 17:30

Trump Blasts “Barack Hussein Obama Judge” After Kennedy Center Renovation Blocked

Trump Blasts “Barack Hussein Obama Judge” After Kennedy Center Renovation Blocked

President Donald Trump lashed out Saturday after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked the planned closure and renovation of the Kennedy Center, accusing the Obama-appointed judge of halting what Trump described as a badly needed structural and aesthetic overhaul of the performing arts venue.

In a lengthy Truth Social post, Trump said millions of dollars in marble, furniture, steel, heating, air conditioning, and other materials had been ordered or were about to be ordered for what he called a “magnificent structural and aesthetic rebuilding” of the center. He argued the building had serious problems involving rust, rot, pests, failing pipes, aging HVAC systems, and structural beams that needed replacement, making it unsafe to keep audiences inside during major construction.

Trump also attacked Cooper personally, alleging a conflict of interest involving the judge’s wife, attorney Amy Jeffress, and tying the Kennedy Center ruling to broader complaints about what he called a “rigged” court system. He said the decision could force the center to remain open despite safety concerns and warned that the institution may soon close “probably never to open again.”

Jeffress, according to Trump, “doesn’t use the ‘Cooper’ name” because the couple “don’t want people to know that she has a Conflict of Interest with an important Judge.” He described Jeffress as “a Radical Left Democrat” who “worked as a Federal Prosecutor and Counselor to Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder,” “worked behind the scenes for the January 6th Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs,” represented former FBI attorney Lisa Page, and is “currently representing Sleepy Joe Biden on the release of his audio tapes.” Trump claimed Jeffress is “totally wired into the Left System, from her husband down,” adding that “it is impossible for me to be treated fairly.”

As the Epoch Times noted earlier, Donald Trump wants to transfer all operations of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to Congress after a federal judge blocked a two-year closure of the venue for renovations.

“The Kennedy Center, which was going to close in early July for largescale renovations and construction due to years of neglect, decay, and poor maintenance, and which was to be transformed by the Trump Administration into the Finest Facility of its kind, anywhere in the World, is not allowed to close for these renovations, which would not be possible to properly do without such a closure,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on May 29.

He accused Democrats of caring “more about opposing your favorite President, ME, than saving a dying Performing Arts Center,” and therefore “we are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing Institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it.”

Washington-based Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued an order on May 29, which temporarily halted the name change and stopped the center from being shut down for a two-year remodel.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper said.

Congress organized the center as a “bureau” within the Smithsonian Institution directed by a board of trustees, he said.

The board was given several duties, including “programming obligations,” “memorial obligations” honoring the legacy of Kennedy, and general maintenance obligations, the judge said.

To satisfy these obligations, Congress “empowered the Board to do the kinds of things that boards typically do: negotiate contracts, prepare budgets, employ personnel, solicit and accept gifts, transfer property, bargain with employees, procure insurance, and issue annual reports.”

The lawsuit’s claim that the center’s board violated its fiduciary duty in voting to close the center was “likely to succeed,” the judge said.

A fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty, care, and good faith that one party owes to another in positions of trust.

Cooper ruled that the building needed to stay open during the planned construction, which would have started after July 4.

Trump said in his May 29 statement that the building needed to be closed for renovation because it had rotting beams and parking areas that were about to collapse.

“I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight,” Trump wrote.

“Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into ‘NEVER NEVER LAND.'”

Trump said the Department of Commerce will arrange a full transfer of operations, maintenance, and management to Congress.

The Epoch Times contacted the White House for additional information.

The ruling came in response to litigation initiated in December 2025 by Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who sued Trump and the Kennedy Center board of trustees over its renaming as the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Beatty is an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees.

Trump appointed himself to the chairman of the venue’s Board of Trustees after he entered his second term as president in early 2025.

The president swiftly removed and replaced the board’s chairman and every single board member who did not share his vision for “a Golden Age in Arts and Culture.”

The current board, which included Vice President JD Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo – unanimously voted to rename the institution the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts in December 2025. Trump welcomed the name change but noted that he didn’t ask for it.

The rebrand came with backlash from some in the performing arts community, as high-profit shows like Hamilton pulled out of plans to tour there.

Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas said it stood in solidarity with the Dramatists Guild and Actors’ Equity Association members who cut ties with the Kennedy Center after Trump’s new board took over.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Actors’ Equity Association and Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas for comment on the latest development.

Matthew Vadum contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 16:20

X Cracks Down On Large “Creator” Accounts Built On Stolen Content

X Cracks Down On Large “Creator” Accounts Built On Stolen Content

The saturation of large X accounts built almost entirely on recycled video clips has become impossible to ignore. Many of these accounts brand themselves as “creators,” but they merely lift original reporting, strip attribution, repackage it, and monetize engagement as if the content were their own.

Elon Musk and X product head Nikita Bier have zeroed in on this issue. X is now demonetizing repeat offenders while redirecting impressions and revenue to true originators. For genuine creators producing original reporting, analysis, and commentary, it’s a long-overdue reset.

Disclose.tv Gets the Hammer

The latest high-profile casualty is Disclose.tv (nearly 2 million followers). The account allegedly lifted spaceflight reporter Adam Bernstein’s dramatic video of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket exploding on the launchpad, cropped the watermark, and reposted it for engagement.

Bernstein called them out: “This video was shot by me as part of my coverage for @SpaceflightNow. It appears you have removed our watermark – please credit us properly.”

Bier jumped in, praising the original footage and confirming the penalty: “Great video – sorry this happened. Creator has been deactivated from monetization for cropping out attribution.”

Mario Nawfal’s Revenue Slash and the Musk Unfollow

Just days earlier, Bier publicly warned serial aggregator Mario Nawfal after he reuploaded an ABC News clip instead of using proper Quote or Video Reshare: “Please do not reupload the author’s video: use Quote or Video Reshare. Your revenue was reduced by 90% last cycle and we’re running out of room to reduce it more.”

Elon Musk unfollowed Nawfal shortly after, sparking widespread speculation.

Massimo Fracas

One of the most dramatic spats involved popular science curator Massimo (@Rainmaker1973), who has 4.3 million followers. Bier dropped the hammer with receipts:

Rainmaker1973 (Massimo) fired back – accusing Bier of unfair treatment, defending watermark cropping as standard practice, claiming selective enforcement, and alleging bullying via Community Notes and deboosting. He announced shifting to a subscriber/donation model and hinted at potentially deleting the account, framing himself as a victim of “abuse of power” and “public execution.”

The exchange lit up X with heated replies, hypocrisy callouts (noting ViralRushX also aggregates from elsewhere), and memes celebrating the “public execution.”

Broader Sweep and Burner Schemes

Other accounts hit include @bpthaber (~1.6M followers) for alleged burner/shield tactics — using secondary accounts to post stolen videos stamped with the main brand to dodge detection. Bier’s team is now actively detecting programmatic re-uploads, watermark stripping, and impression hijacking at scale.

Jason Calacanis summed up the originals’ frustration: “The crazy part, is these accounts are getting paid to steal peoples content – which will make ABC give up on the platform eventually.”

These very public spats highlight X’s aggressive pivot: rewarding originality over volume and manipulation to clean up the platform, boost trust, improve timeline quality, and attract more substantive journalism.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 15:45

Missiles Rain Down On Northern Israel In Large Hezbollah ‘Revenge’ Operation

Missiles Rain Down On Northern Israel In Large Hezbollah ‘Revenge’ Operation

Northern Israel has come under heavy attack from Hezbollah on Saturday, after this past week a full-scale war has resumed in southern Lebanon, which even saw the resumption of Israeli airstrikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs, much further to the north.

Even while Tel Aviv maintains the illusion of a ceasefire with Lebanon (as in, its government and national army), there is no ceasefire with Iran-linked Hezbollah, following weeks of sporadic drones being sent on northern Israel, as well as troop positions of invading IDF forces.

The Saturday drone and missile waves hit multiple locations in and around the Galilee area, with regional media reporting that at least eight missiles were launched at Israeli positions in the initial salvo, one of which struck a site in Kiryat Shmona city.

Hezbollah subsequently announced it had carried out 22 military operations against Israeli army positions and equipment within the prior 24 hours. It framed this as a revenge operation for Israeli attacks on civilian centers in Lebanon.

Times of Israel has cited IDF statements saying Israel is bracing for more attacks out of Lebanon. “Hezbollah launched several rockets from Lebanon at the Western Galilee a short while ago,” it said in a late in the day Saturday (local time) update. “The IDF says some of the rockets were intercepted and others struck open areas, causing no injuries.”

Sirens across several towns and cities were activated, and there were scenes of coastal locales being impacted, with throngs of people scrambling for bomb shelters.

Starting early last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that he instructed his military to “press the pedal even harder” against Hezbollah, reportedly upon a greenlight being given by Washington, following increased drone attacks from the Shia paramilitary group backed by Iran on northern Israel.

Impacts filmed in water areas of Nahariya Beach

“We are at war with Hezbollah. Just in recent weeks, our brave fighters have eliminated more than 600 terrorists,” Netanyahu announced in video statement. “But we are not taking our foot off the gas. On the contrary, I have instructed them to press the pedal even harder.

“We will strike them. Yes, they are attacking us with drones, cyber-enabled drones, and we have a special team working on this — and we will solve that too…But what this requires from us now is to intensify the blows, increase the force. We will strike them decisively,” the Israeli leader said.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 05/30/2026 – 15:45