A US drone strike in Baghdad killed a senior militia leader on Thursday, marking another significant escalation that could lead to a full-blown regional war.
The strike killed Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi, also known as Abu Taqwa, a deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) operations in Baghdad. The PMF is a coalition of mostly Shia Iraqi militias that are part of the government’s security forces.
The Pentagon claims Abu Taqwa was believed to be responsible for attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria that started in October in response to US support for Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, but the US has not provided any evidence for the assertion.
The drone strike has enraged the Iraqi government, which condemned it as a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty and security of Iraq” and said it was “no different from a terrorist act.”
The US has launched several rounds of airstrikes in Iraq since October, all of which have been strongly condemned by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, the US’s supposed partner in the country.
Al-Sudani’s government has also condemned the attacks on US bases in Iraq but wants to work to find the perpetrators and strongly opposes the unilateral US airstrikes and extra-judicial killings.
Al-Sudani said last week that his government was “heading towards” ending the presence of foreign forces in Iraq, which includes 2,500 US troops.
Iraq’s parliament voted to expel US troops back in 2020 following the US drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, but the US has refused to leave.
“Early Signs Of Rebound”: Manhattan Home Prices Rise For First Time In Year
For the first time in a year, Manhattan home prices in the fourth quarter rose as homebuyers came off the sidelines after the Federal Reserve’s pivot led to a plunge in mortgage rates, laying the groundwork for a re-acceleration in the borough’s housing market this spring.
Bloomberg cites new data from appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate, which shows the median sales price closed was around $1.16 million, up 5.1% – the first annual increase since the third quarter of 2022.
Data showed two-thirds of Manhattan buyers paid cash despite the 30-year fixed mortgage rate plunging from a two-decade high of around 8% at the start of November to about 6.61% by the end of December – on the back of the Federal Reserve’s rate hike cycle pivot.
Even though the total number of property transactions declined in the quarter, home sales valued at more than $5 million surged – an indication wealthy folks are buying ahead of the spring season.
“The market is giving early signs that it’s beginning to rebound,” Miller said, adding, “It’s not going to do an about-face overnight, but it’s trending to stronger performance in terms of transactions and inventory and, to a certain degree, prices.”
Bloomberg noted, “Contracts to buy homes in Manhattan — a more timely indicator of demand than closed sales — rose in December from a year earlier … The increase signals the start of a process in which lower interest rates bring in more buyers, and prompt more sellers to list their homes.”
The late-year surge in the Manhattan housing market came after US home prices in October, one month before mortgage rates began to fall, rose for the 9th straight month.
“US home prices accelerated at their fastest annual rate of the year in October,” says Brian D. Luke, Head of Commodities, Real & Digital assets at S&P DJI.
“We are experiencing broad based home price appreciation across the country, with steady gains seen in nineteen of twenty cities.”
Could lower mortgage rates and tight housing supply unleash another round of bidding wars for the spring season?
Florida’s Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, is warning against any use of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines citing cancer concerns.
Dr. Ladapo says a Canadian study found “billions to hundreds of billions” of DNA molecules per dose, exceeding guidelines set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
He sent a letter on Dec. 6, to the FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Mandy Cohen outlining his concerns about the high presence of DNA molecules in the mRNA vaccines alongside lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to deliver medicine into human cells.
If LNPs are so effective at administering the vaccine’s medicine into human cells, Dr. Ladapo says he fears they will deliver the contaminant DNA molecules simultaneously.
He cites a 2007 guidance report from the FDA on the regulatory limits for DNA in vaccines, which indicated risks of affecting the human genes that transform healthy cells into cancerous cells.
The report also discusses the risk of how this integration of DNA in vaccines can lead to issues with the heart, brain, blood, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, ovaries, and testes, draining lymph nodes, spleen, and the vaccine’s administration and injection site.
“DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health, and to the integrity of the human genome, including the risk that DNA integrated into sperm or egg, gametes could be passed onto offspring of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients.
“If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings,” Dr. Ladapo said in a news release.
He is not calling for a widespread rejection of all vaccines and instead urges health care providers to prioritize non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and treatment while assessing research into overall vaccine risks.
Dr. Ladapo was in hot water in April 2023 after a public records request discovered edits he made to a state-commissioned survey on mRNA vaccines, garnering accusations of “exaggerating” the data to fit his position against giving COVID-19 vaccines to “healthy” children and adults of certain ages.
He defended the move as a scientific “revision” and felt justified in removing a certain data analysis from the original survey.
But others have raised concerns with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as well, including Dr. Eduardo Balbona, an internal medicine doctor from Jacksonville, Florida.
Dr. Balbona has been practicing for three decades and advocates for evidence-based medicine that emphasizes preventing disease and maintaining health with “education and a deliberative proactive approach to lifelong care.”
After receiving single or repeat doses of the mRNA vaccines, some of his patients experienced a host of different symptoms and felt “ill immediately afterward.”
In “some people, it takes a couple of weeks. So there [are] different patterns of injury. And I would say [for] some people, it’s almost an anaphylactic reaction.
“They have the vaccine, and from that moment on, they’re just not well. Often … they lose their blood pressure, or they have a crazy blood pressure. It either drops to 70 or goes to 200,” Dr. Balbona told The Epoch Times.
Several of his patients also developed posterior orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) which, according to the Cleveland Clinic, is a condition that “causes your heart to beat faster than normal when you transition from sitting or lying down to standing up.”
POTS is not easy to diagnose because several of its symptoms, including dizziness, fainting, chest pain, headaches, and heart palpitations, can occur over time despite resulting from a common cause.
There is currently no cure for POTS, although exercise, physical activity, and a cardiac rehabilitation program can be used as treatment.
Dr. Balbona also saw patients with increased blood pressure and others who had developed a hypercoagulable state, which is when the blood coagulates excessively in the absence of bleeding, according to the National Institutes of Health.
He was also concerned by the number of men in their late teens, 20s, and 30s who developed pulmonary embolisms without genetic predispositions or pre-existing health issues that would cause them.
A pulmonary embolism occurs when a fragment, most likely a blood clot, gets stuck in a lung artery and blocks the flow of blood, according to the Mayo Clinic.
Other patients developed myocarditis and pericarditis directly after receiving the vaccine, Dr. Balbona said.
According to the CDC, “myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart.”
The symptoms of myocarditis and pericarditis are chest pain, shortness of breath, and “feelings of having a fast beating, fluttering, or pounding heart.”
The CDC admits that some patients developed these conditions after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines but that cases are “rare” and that many heal on their own.
However, since the symptoms can mimic anxiety reactions, some patients might be unaware they have either myocarditis or pericarditis, making data collection difficult.
Dr. Balbona spoke with patients who went to hospitals with these symptoms and were turned away by nurses and doctors who told them the issues were psychological, possibly assuming the patients were anxious or experiencing acute panic attacks.
He also believes some who received the vaccines were given “blanks” instead of shots with active medicine inside. Dr. Balbona said he tested several patients after they received their shots, and they lacked COVID-19 antibodies, which should be present in the blood after vaccination.
Dr. Balbona believes some patients might have been vaccinated with just saline solution as a result of poor storage and handling of the vaccines themselves, which required cold storage at all times to prevent the destruction of the medicine inside.
Patients often tell him they’re worried about falling ill because of having had one or many COVID-19 vaccines.
“So if you had the vaccine several years ago, and you feel fine, and you have no problems, you’re likely okay,” he added.
Dr. Balbona believes the research will eventually catch up with what he and other physicians are seeing while treating their patients.
“At some point—I think that point is long past due—these vaccines will be withdrawn from the market. They’re not safe. They’re harming people. They may be harming people in ways that are durable. The recent DNA contamination is very concerning for increasing risk of cancer,” he said.
However, despite the alleged cancer risks of using mRNA inside COVID-19 vaccines, he said, “the underlying technology is something that’s actually very remarkable.
“mRNA technology was misused in the COVID pandemic,” he said. “It should not be given indiscriminately.
“It’s gene therapy; there’s no question of that. And it has the ability to do some remarkable things in terms of good in the right situation. If you can turn on and off a gene or a protein in a patient who has a very serious illness, that’s fine.
“That may be a fabulous tool in the future, but you have to disclose the risks and the benefits.”
As former President Donald Trump’s polling lead over his Republican rivals has come to look insurmountable, more than 40 names have bubbled up in speculation about his pick for vice president in the 2024 election.
“People are talking about Trump VP picks because they recognize the primary is over and has been for quite some time,” Jason Meister, a New York-based adviser to the former president, told The Epoch Times. “Trump is polling stronger than he did in 2016 and 2020. He’s surging with blacks, independents, and younger Americans.”
Nearly 63 percent of would-be voters say they favor President Trump as the GOP presidential nominee, according to the latest RealClearPolitics polling average.
That compares with about 11 percent support each for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who served as President Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.
President Trump’s dominance in the polls has persisted in spite of—or, some say, because of—the “lawfare” being waged against him. The former president faces 91 criminal charges that threaten his freedom, civil cases aimed at his financial empire, and state-level efforts to boot him from 2024 ballots.
Arguably, these precarious circumstances make it even more important to wisely choose a running mate, since a vice president must be prepared to step in if the president cannot, for some reason, fulfill his duties.
Even if the vice president doesn’t assume the role of president, the position often serves as a steppingstone to the presidency.
Among the past 10 presidents, four previously served as vice president, including the incumbent, Democrat President Joe Biden.
Shopping for the ideal vice president requires consideration of many variables. That person should possess political clout and experience and must embrace the presidential candidate’s proposed policies. He or she also should be capable of drawing more supporters into the fold.
In that vein, an ethnic minority or a female might make an advantageous vice president choice for President Trump, because such a person might bolster his support among those factions of voters.
Many of his supporters bristle at the notion of a “check-the-boxes” choice. But savvy presidential candidates always seek to “balance” the ticket and “fill in gaps” of their base, analysts say. Factors such as home state, ideology, and personal characteristics come into play.
Above all, President Trump has said he has one paramount requirement: his confidence that the person will do a good job.
Whomever he chooses, a good vice president cannot be overly charismatic and upstage the top of the ticket. This chosen leader also must be capable of being subordinate to the president.
On top of all that, the running mate’s personality must mesh well with the presidential candidate.
Opinions All Over the Board
When choosing a running mate, an overarching principle should be “first, do no harm,” according to Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida. He said it’s “the political equivalent of the Hippocratic oath that doctors take,” and it simply means that a vice presidential candidate cannot be a person who might “drag the ticket down.”
The choice of a running mate seems to have little effect on whether a candidate becomes the presidential nominee or wins the presidency, Mr. Jewett said.
Still, many voters do pay at least some attention to the second name on the ticket. And, to some degree, they do judge presidential candidates by the company they keep. Voters see the vice presidential selection as “a sign of the presidential candidate’s judgment,” he said.
These are among the reasons people start buzzing about who might make a good running mate fairly early in an election cycle.
Speculation about President Trump’s possible running mate began more than two years ago—almost three years in advance of the Republican National Convention, where delegates will choose their nominee for the November ballot.
Customarily, presidential candidates announce their choice of a running mate a few days before the convention’s start; the GOP convention is set for July 15–18 in Milwaukee.
Although President Trump and his team have said they aren’t ready to talk about potential running mates, voters wonder who will make the cut—and some have begun voicing opinions about who they prefer.
On Dec. 13, 2023, Newsweek magazine reported that Mr. DeSantis prevailed as the No. 1 vice president choice among 1,500 voters surveyed, drawing 25 percent support from people who said they would vote for President Trump.
But a few days after that poll’s release, Mr. DeSantis ranked toward the bottom of a different survey at Turning Point Action’s “AmericaFest 2023” in Arizona. Among the 1,113 attendees who responded to the questions, 81 percent said they were Republican; more than half were over age 50, and one-fifth of them were under age 30.
When asked whom they favored as a running mate for President Trump, 35 percent named former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Only 6 percent named Mr. DeSantis.
Ohio businessman Vivek Ramaswamy was the sole would-be vice president who finished in the top three slots in both of those polls. He drew 16 percent support in the Newsweek survey and 26 percent in the AmericaFest poll.
Although Ms. Haley’s 19 percent share ranked her second in the Newsweek survey, she was decidedly unpopular with the AmericaFest crowd. The audience booed and jeered when her name was mentioned onstage; the poll showed that only 2 percent wanted her as President Trump’s running mate.
Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Ramaswamy, and Ms. Haley have all publicly stated they have no desire to be second-in-command. So have a number of other people whose names have been mentioned.
And, at a Michigan speech in September 2023, President Trump said he saw little running mate potential among the dozen or so candidates who were then vying for the Republican presidential nomination.
Still, people who said they were uninterested in an offer might change their minds. So could President Trump.
The Epoch Times has compiled a list of potential Trump running mates based on political betting odds, surveys, political scientists’ opinions, online chatter, and interviews with insiders.
The list includes many of the most-talked-about possibilities—plus a few more obscure picks that just might appeal to President Trump. After all, his eventual 2016 running mate, former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, was an unexpected choice.
Possible Picks
US Sen. Tim Scott
For several reasons, the South Carolina lawmaker could bolster President Trump’s candidacy more than many of the other names that have been proposed in recent months.
Mr. Scott is passionate about sharing his religious faith, endearing him to evangelical Christians—an important voting bloc that also found President Trump’s former vice president, Mr. Pence, appealing.
Because he is the only black Republican senator in Congress, Mr. Scott also might help draw more black voters, a group that has traditionally voted Democrat but has recently been shifting more toward President Trump and other Republicans.
Although Mr. Scott often delivers powerful speeches, they’re tempered by a Southern-gentlemanlike, more genteel demeanor, Mr. Bullock said, which would provide a counterbalance to the brash native New York style of President Trump.
Mr. Scott, 58, comes across as “younger and more vigorous” than President Trump, Mr. Bullock said.
While campaigning for the presidency earlier this year, Mr. Scott largely avoided attacking President Trump. And the former president, known for aiming barbs at his opponents, had instead praised Mr. Scott.
Both men used the phrase “good guy” to describe each other in July 2023 amid persistent rumors about the Trump ticket.
Mr. Scott bowed out of the race in November 2023. One political insider told The Epoch Times that he had direct knowledge that Mr. Scott expressed gratitude to President Trump for a running mate offer but felt he had to turn it down.
The Epoch Times attempted to reach Mr. Scott for comment in late December, but his staff said he was unavailable during the Christmas-New Year’s holiday break.
Mr. Scott wasn’t listed as a vice presidential candidate in the Newsweek poll, and he drew less than 1 percent support from the AmericaFest crowd.
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
Ms. Haley’s former gubernatorial and foreign policy experience, along with her status as a female and the daughter of immigrants from India, make her a logical pick—at least on paper. Both Mr. Jewett and Charles Bullock III, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, concur on those points.
But in reality, President Trump risks turning off many supporters if he dares to choose her.
Recently, media outlets began running a flurry of articles themed “Trump is secretly considering Haley as VP.” The reception from Trumpworld has been frosty.
On Dec. 23, 2023, as such stories were circulating, Trump ally Roger Stone posted on Truth Social: “Fact: The United States has never had a VP nicknamed ‘Birdbrain’–and never will,” referring to a nickname that President Trump bestowed upon Ms. Haley.
Mr. Meister said: “I can’t predict who Trump will ultimately choose as his running mate, but I can tell you who it can’t be. It can’t be Haley.”
He and others see Ms. Haley as a “neoconservative,“ or a ”neoliberal” who is too closely tied to the entrenched political establishment that President Trump has said he wants to dismantle. Several say they flat-out distrust her.
The former president’s son Donald Trump Jr. emphatically opposes her.
But Lara Trump, the wife of President Trump’s other adult son, Eric Trump, refused to rule out Ms. Haley.
Still, many of President Trump’s supporters dislike Ms. Haley so much that they swear they’ll vote against any ticket that includes the name “Haley.”
During a Dec. 27, 2023, interview with journalist John Solomon, President Trump disputed reports that he was considering Ms. Haley for a running mate. He said he wasn’t considering anyone for the job because he is focused on winning the upcoming caucuses, which begin on Jan. 15 in Iowa.
However, the former president did concede that he and Ms. Haley have gotten along well, even though he considers her “somewhat disloyal” for breaking her promise not to run against him. “But that’s a politician,” he said.
President Trump “doesn’t seem to have the same sort of animosity against her” as he does against Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Jewett said.
Mr. Bullock noted that Ms. Haley, 51, would provide a more youthful contrast to President Trump, who is 77, and his presumed Democrat opponent, 81-year-old President Biden.
Other points in Ms. Haley’s favor: She hasn’t attacked President Trump as strongly as some of her fellow Republican challengers. And she has publicly stated, more than once, that she would pardon President Trump if she becomes president and he is convicted of a criminal charge.
However, she has recently intensified her criticisms of President Trump, saying he shouldn’t be president because chaos follows him.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy
By starting his candidacy at age 37, the millionaire millennial became the youngest Republican to ever seek the Oval Office.
Although he lacks experience, the Harvard and Yale graduate brings energy, intelligence, and courage to the table.
At the first GOP presidential debate on Aug. 23, 2023, in Milwaukee, Mr. Ramaswamy demonstrated that he’s willing to be bold.
Without hesitation, he raised his hand to indicate that he would support President Trump if he were to be criminally convicted yet became the Republican nominee. The other GOP candidates onstage followed Mr. Ramaswamy’s lead, one by one, some rather sheepishly.
Mr. Ramaswamy has denounced the weaponization of the justice system against President Trump. He also has decried numerous states’ attempts to ban President Trump from the ballot based on claims that he incited an “insurrection” during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. Mr. Ramaswamy vowed to withdraw his own name from any ballot that excludes President Trump; he has challenged his fellow candidates to do the same.
In addition, Mr. Ramaswamy publicly criticized Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel as an ineffective leader and called for her resignation.
Mr. Ramaswamy recently completed his second round of “The Full Grassley,” making stops in all 99 of Iowa’s counties, a maneuver that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pioneered. Still, he has been lagging in Iowa polls.
Among the second-tier GOP presidential hopefuls, Mr. Ramaswamy has run “the most interesting and original campaign,” in the opinion of Roger Simon, a columnist for The Epoch Times.
Many people, including Mr. Simon, have said that Mr. Ramaswamy has a bright future in politics, possibly as a member of a Trump administration—even if not as vice president.
Besides being a fan favorite in two polls about potential Trump running mates, Mr. Ramaswamy ranks highly among some political betting sites, such as OddsChecker.com.
And, he, like Ms. Haley, was born to parents who emigrated from India, a background that could appeal to ethnic minorities if President Trump were to choose him as a running mate.
Still, Mr. Ramaswamy has no prior political or governmental experience. But neither did President Trump before his presidency.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem
Ms. Noem, 52, has risen in prominence during the past several years even though her state has next-to-zero gravitational pull in U.S. politics.
One reason she gained attention: She refused to impose lockdowns during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, saying she trusted citizens to make wise choices for themselves.
Ms. Noem served in Congress for six years and understands the D.C. Beltway. She also served on the Armed Services Committee and, in that role, observed President Trump’s leadership first hand.
That’s one reason she cited when she endorsed him in September 2023 at a rally in Rapid City, South Dakota. She also pledged to do everything in her power to help President Trump win back the White House.
Talk about her as a possible running mate choice accelerated after the words “Trump Noem 2024” flashed briefly on a video screen at the rally. And now, such speculation is renewed because Ms. Noem is set to campaign for the former president in Iowa during his pre-caucus blitz.
She was elected in 2018 as South Dakota’s first female governor. Last year, she won reelection with “the largest vote total in the history of South Dakota,” her online biography says.
Mr. Jewett put her in the category of “politicians and sort of traditional candidates” but noted, “She’d bring that diversity to the ticket by virtue of being a woman.”
At one point in late December 2023, Ms. Noem, Mr. Ramaswamy, and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) were in a three-way tie as betting favorites to gain the running mate spot. But in the Newsweek poll, Ms. Noem drew only 3 percent support; she registered less than 1 percent in the AmericaFest survey.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum
“Doug who?” was the question many people asked after Mr. Burgum declared his presidential candidacy in June 2023. He also hails from a low-profile Great Plains state and struggled to gain attention during his campaign, which he ended in early December.
But during that six-month span, Mr. Burgum found a creative way to qualify for two GOP presidential debates—and made a positive impression onstage, drawing glowing remarks from President Trump, who has skipped all of the RNC-sponsored debates.
After the first debate in August 2023, President Trump, commenting on potential running mate picks, told Newsmax that Mr. Burgum is “great” and said, “I respect him a lot.”
White House Says Russia Used North Korean Ballistic Missiles In Ukraine
Throughout much of the Ukraine conflict, the US and UK have alleged secret North Korean artillery shell transfers to Russia, via train in the far east.
But this week Washington has ratcheted its accusations further, alleging that Russia is using North Korean supplied ballistic missiles to attack Ukrainian cities.
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby on Thursday pointed to recently declassified intelligence which finds that Pyongyang provided Moscow with these weapons, and further said a North Korean missile was fired on Ukraine at least once.
However, any specifics were not forthcoming and the accusations remained vague, perhaps only for the purpose of the US generating some headlines as part of wartime propaganda.
To be expected, Kirby also highlighted the deepened Russian-Iran relationship, and said that the Kremlin is seeking Iranian close-range ballistic missiles. Kirby said these negotiations are “actively advancing”.
In a bit of curious timing, a Bloomberg op-ed published on the same day as Kirby’s briefing urged America to stop the new “axis of evil”…
Since Feb. 24, 2022, and especially since Oct. 7, 2023, a specter has haunted the world and worried US President Joe Biden in particular: Will Russia’s war against Ukraine, or Israel’s against Hamas, draw in other belligerents, perhaps even culminating in World War III?
Biden has therefore done everything in his power to support Ukraine and Israel while also keeping the US and its Western allies out of direct confrontations with Russia, Hamas’ backers in Iran, and their Chinese and North Korean quasi-allies. But conflicts change unpredictably. Every vagary increases the risk that an artillery round fired over here sends missiles flying over there and detonates a bigger blow-up.
The author says, “To avoid a wider war, American diplomacy must keep China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as separate as possible.”
The US needs to confront the new “Axis of Evil” (Iran, Russia, China, North Korea) by preventing it from even forming @opinionhttps://t.co/9l26dTp4lp
Russia and Ukraine have over the last several days been engaged in a ramped-up air war, especially following last week’s rare Ukrainian cross-border attack on Belgorod. It the tit-for-tat escalation, scores of civilians have been killed on both sides, bearing the brunt of this latest escalation.
Given Biden’s new defense aid for Kiev was held up by Republicans in Congress, it seems the only thing the White House has in its arsenal for the time being is to talk up the alleged Russia-North Korea-Iran links.
Texas dominates U.S. oil production, contributing 42.6% of the total output, mainly due to the Permian Basin.
New Mexico has seen a dramatic 190% increase in oil production over the past five years, becoming the second-leading oil producer in the U.S.
California faces a 30.7% reduction in oil production over the past five years, largely due to political and geological challenges.
U.S. oil production has increased by 21% over the past five years. According to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), earlier this month U.S. oil producers set a new annual production record.
This increase is being driven by a surge of production in a handful of states. I thought it might be of interest to look at which states are contributing the most to U.S. oil production, and how much production has changed over the past five years.
Total production for 2023 is not yet available, but monthly numbers are available through September (as well as weekly number through mid-December). I averaged oil production over the past 12 months (October 2022 through September 2023) for the entire U.S., as well as for every state that reported oil production in the past five years. (See the data source here).
Here were the Top 11 oil-producing states over the past year. Production is in million barrels per day (BPD).
Top 11 Oil-Producing States in 2023.
Texas is contributing the largest share to the production record at 42.6% of the U.S. total. This is primarily due to surging production in the Permian Basin. The Permian Basin effect can also be seen in New Mexico’s incredible 190% surge over the past five years. New Mexico is now the country’s second-leading oil producer.
Production in North Dakota is still above one million bpd, but oil production there is down from its peak. However, North Dakota production has been increasing this year, and is up 17% over the past year.
Five of the eleven states shown have seen production decline over the past five years. If you wonder why I listed eleven states, it was primarily to include Ohio, which has not historically been thought of as one of the leading oil producers. Ohio’s production is still modest relative to states like Texas and New Mexico, but it is growing due to development in the Utica Shale in the Appalachian Basin.
A hundred years ago, California was the country’s top oil producer. In the late 1980s, California was still producing over one million bpd. But production has been in steady decline there, due to politics and unfavorable geology that rendered hydraulic fracturing less appealing than in midwestern oil and gas formations. Over the past five years, California’s 30.7% decline in oil production is the largest among top producers.
One major area of production that I didn’t consider here was federal offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico. Over the past year, that contributed another 1.84 million bpd, which is 9.3% higher than it was five years ago (and just under the record 1.898 million bpd level set in 2019).
Philly Police Fired Their “Diversity, Equity And Inclusion Officer” This Week
Thanks to help from Harvard’s Claudine Gay, who was unable to condemn harassment on her campus against Jewish students and was later found to have plagiarized what appears to be her entire body of academic work, it looks as though the diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) wolf in sheep’s clothing is finally starting to be seen for what it is.
That reverberation may have made its way to Philadelphia, where the crime and drug-ridden city is once again attempting to make a swift change back to law and order under newly-sworn in mayor Cherelle Parker, widely acknowledged to be the most pro-police candidate out of the Democratic choices in the city.
And just hours before Parker was sworn into office, the Philadelphia Police Department’s first diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, Leslie Marant, was fired, according to a report by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Almost as if when your hellscape of a city needs more police desperately, it doesn’t matter what color, race, creed or orientation they are. Go figure.
The report says that Marant started her role in April 2022 and was dismissed by acting Commissioner John M. Stanford during a 10:30 a.m. meeting this Tuesday morning. Stanford stated that due to departmental restructuring under new police commissioner Kevin Bethel, Marant’s services were no longer required.
Spokesperson, Sgt. Eric Gripp, said in a statement: “Under new leadership, restructuring and realignment of an organization is common. We want to express our sincere gratitude to Ms. Marant for her dedicated work and professionalism during her time with the PPD.”
“As this is a Police Department personnel matter, the administration has no comment,” a spokesman for Mayor Parker said.
Despite the firing, the DEI office is going to continue to remain active, the report says. The department will soon reveal an interim director and a nationwide hunt for a permanent successor to Marant’s position is planned, the Inquirer wrote.
Marant, initially appointed under ex-Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, previously served as chief counsel to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. She holds degrees in finance, human resources, and law from Temple University.
Lacking prior law enforcement experience, Marant’s DEI officer role, as outlined by Outlaw, involved leading the department’s DEI initiatives across all levels and developing relevant strategies. Her salary was $170,569.
Earlier today, the Federalist Society held a “Seat at the Sitting” online forum covering several cases the Supreme Court is about to hear. I participated, discussing two important takings cases: Devillier v. Texas (in which I have submitted an amicus brief) and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. A full list of the participants and the cases covered is available here.
The panel featured several perspectives you might not expect at a Fed Soc event. Prof. Christopher Walker (U of Michigan) argued that the Supreme Court should decline to abolish Chevron deference to administrative agencies in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Mark Rienzi (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) argued the government should not get deference in a case challenging the placement on the “No Fly List” of a Muslim suspected of ties to a radical mosque. And Grover Joseph Rees, III, former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in a GOP administration, argued the pro-immigration side likely deserves to prevail in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, case addressing the question of whether migrants received adequate notice of deportation proceedings.
I have embedded the video below. My presentation begins around 55:20:
Given my background and views, I should be highly sympathetic to the positions laid out in economist Bryan Caplan’s new book You Will Not Stampede Me: Essays on Non-Conformism. I’m a fan of Bryan’s previous books on voter ignorance, immigration, and education (despite a few reservations about the latter). In addition, I’m a libertarian (a somewhat less radical one than Bryan, but more so than about 95% of Americans), an atheist (also like Bryan), author of a book on why majority views on political issues are often wrong because of systematic ignorance and bias, and an advocate of many unpopular views. People who know me well will tell you that I’m more likely than the average person to violate various social norms.
If anyone is a receptive audience for Bryan’s new book, it would be someone like me! And I do indeed agree with a lot of it. For example, he gives excellent explanations of why many commonly held views are likely to be wrong. Bryan also effectively explains how you can often get away with non-conformism while suffering few or no social or economic penalties. On many issues, most conformists are unwilling to devote great time and effort to enforcing conformity! Indeed, doing so might get them branded as annoying fanatics.
For example, polls show that we atheists are an unpopular group. But, as Bryan explains, in most middle to upper-middle-class circles in the modern US, there are few or no costs to being an open atheist. That is similar to my own experience, as well. Though admittedly things would be different if I were running for political office, and possibly if I lived in a highly socially conservative Bible Belt area.
There are many other good points in Bryan’s book, as well. But I think he and some other advocates of non-conformism may underrate some key arguments for—limited—conformity.
One is that conformism often makes good sense on questions you don’t care much about. For example, I’m skeptical that moving towards gender-neutral language is a good idea, or that it does much to reduce sexism. But I don’t actually care much about the terminology in question, and therefore usually go along with majority intellectual trends on these matters. I figure it’s better to conform and thereby avoid unnecessarily alienating people, than to make a stand on a hill I don’t care much about. Situations like this come up in many situations. Bryan implicitly recognizes this when he recommends conformity in a few situations where the cost of non-conformity is high, and the benefit low. But he doesn’t generalize the point—at least not clearly.
A more substantial problem is the possibility that some widely held views and norms might embody valuable wisdom, even if we modern non-conformists don’t understand why. This, of course, is the traditional “Burkean conservative” argument for adhering to tradition.
The standard critique of Burkean conservatism is that history shows many longstanding, widely accepted traditions were horrifically wrong: slavery, serfdom, the subordination of women, persecution of religious dissenters, and more. This litany undermines the case for unthinking adherence to tradition, as a general rule. But there might be some categories of norms and traditions that deserve more deference than others. Back in 2008, I argued that Burkean conservatism is a poor rule when it comes to coercively imposed norms, including many of the familiar examples of awful traditions, such as slavery. The same can be said for many that are the result of the imposition of majority public opinion in a democracy. The work of many scholars -including both Caplan and myself—shows that majority opinion on political issues is often heavily influenced by ignorance and bias, and that voters have little incentive to seek the truth and correct wrong opinions.
That doesn’t prove democracy is worse than dictatorship or oligarchy. But it does mean we should give little credence to the idea that political views are likely to be right merely because they are supported by a majority of voters and embraced by candidates who win elections.
On the other hand, however, social norms that emerge from market processes or civil society are more likely to be well-founded. In such situations, people “vote with their feet” and thereby have more incentive to get things right. That’s no guarantee of infallibility. Far from it! But it does suggest a stronger case for deferring to social norms that emerged in this way. If your workplace, your church, or your social circle has certain norms of behavior and civility, there’s at least a substantial likelihood they make good sense, even if you may not understand why. Otherwise, these institutions would lose members, workers, and customers to rivals with better rules and traditions.
That’s far from a guarantee of infallibility. But it does justify giving at least some substantial deference to norms in these situations. That’s especially the case if you’re new to the institution and have little knowledge of how it works, and what purposes its rules and norms might serve. The relevant comparison is not between the norm and perfection, but between the quality of the decision-making process that led to the norm, and the quality of your own judgment on the issue in question.
Finally, sometimes it makes sense to conform to the views of experts—at least in cases where there is a relatively broad consensus among the relevant experts, and they have relatively good incentives to seek the truth. I summarized the justification—and limits—of this kind of deference here, and more fully in a book chapter on “Trust and Political Ignorance.”
Experts are far from infallible, and we should keep in mind biases and poor incentives that make them unreliable in some situations (as well as the tendency of many of them to opine on issues that are actually beyond their expertise). But we should also remember there are important issues on which experts’ views are more likely to be reliable than those of laypeople. In those situations, a degree of conformist deference makes sense.
Even in situations where it makes sense to defer to tradition, norms, or experts, such deference should not be absolute. The case for deference could be outweighed by a large amount of contrary evidence, or moral considerations. But the burden of justification for going against “the herd” in such cases is higher than in areas where there is little reason to think that herd has any special wisdom or insight.
Some of these points are likely compatible with Bryan Caplan’s views, laid out in his book. But he doesn’t systematically incorporate them as limitations on his general (and often justified!) opposition to conformism.
They are also worth keeping in mind if you are the kind of person who views norms and traditions with suspicion. I am like that myself. Whereas the average person may tend towards excessive conformism, intellectuals—especially those who hold many unpopular views—may have the opposite bias. Such people are likely overrepresented among academics, political commentators, and possibly even readers of this blog.
The White House has warned that the potential for higher shipping costs to affect the U.S. economy amid diversion of ships from the Red Sea will depend on how long Houthi rebels sustain their attacks on commercial vessels.
“If we weren’t concerned, we wouldn’t have stood up an operation in the Red Sea, now consisting of more than 20 nations, to try to protect that commerce,” White House spokesman John Kirby said at a White House press conference on Wednesday, referring to the U.S.-led military force Operation Prosperity Guardian.
“The Red Sea is a vital waterway, and a significant amount of global trade flows through it. By forcing nations to go around the Cape of Good Hope, you’re adding weeks and weeks onto voyages, and untold resources and expenses have to be applied in order to do that. So obviously there’s a concern about the impact on global trade.”
Interestingly, Kirby was then asked by a reporter whether the spiraling situation would become “pocketbook” issue for Americans.
Kirby responded by saying “It would depend on how long this threat goes and on how much more energetic the Houthis think they might become.” He added: “Right now we haven’t seen an uptick or a specific effect on the U.S. economy. But make no mistake. This is a key international waterway. Countries more and more are becoming aware of this increasing threat to the free flow of commerce.”
Thus he fully acknowledged this is a distinct possibility that’s fast approaching.
Imagine a bunch of goatherders, who are pissed off at Israel over the Gaza bombing, stopping world trade.
It’s improbable. Unlikely. Fatuous, even.
And yet, here we are, talking about everything Joke Biden needs to bury if he (or his body double) wants to win in November.
The Butterfly Effect is when a very small change in initial conditions that creates a significantly different outcome.
In 1950, Alan Turing noted: “The displacement of a single electron by a billionth of a centimeter at one moment might make the difference between a man being killed by an avalanche a year later or escaping.”
There is no need to wonder what Turing would be thinking if a bunch of Houthis were sitting on the cliffs lining the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, lighting off cheap drones and rockets at any Israeli or Israel-aligned ship.
If you’re Russian or Chinese or anyone aligned with the Global South, pass “Go” and collect $200.
On our editorial call on Wednesday, ex-naval aviator and Paradigm’s venerable historian Byron King mentioned something I hadn’t considered.
Byron said – and I’ll paraphrase – that the Houthis were using $100,000 drones to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, while the US Navy was using $1 – 4 million rockets to shoot those drones down.
You don’t need a mathematics degree to see why experts think this unbalanced exchange of munitions will eventually pressure the Pentagon.
Well, thanks to these Houthis, we’re heading back to the water routes of the 1860s!
Why Americans Need to Care About This… And Think Carefully.
You may not yet recognize the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait I mentioned earlier. That’s the waterway a ship needs to travel through to get to the Suez Canal.
If the Strait is blocked due to rocket fire and the subsequent suspending of maritime insurance, then the Canal is inaccessible. And that means you’ve got to sail around Africa for goods to reach Europe and the West.
While the US military is successful at producing expensive, technologically complex weapons systems that provide excellent profits for the arms industry, such as the F-15 warplanes, it is not capable of producing enough of the weapons needed to actually fight and win real wars on the other side of the world, where supply chains become even more critical.
But the economic warfare is even more dreadful.
Impact on Shipping Costs
Shortest Route
The Suez Canal offers the most direct sea route between Asia and Europe, significantly reducing travel time and distance compared to the alternative Cape of Good Hope route (around the bottom of Africa). When the canal is inaccessible, ships are forced to take this longer route, increasing travel times by weeks and fuel costs exponentially.
Fuel Costs
Longer journeys translate directly into higher fuel consumption. This additional cost is invariably passed onto consumers, raising the prices of goods transported via these routes.
Charter Rates
The canal closure often leads to a shortage of available shipping capacity. Ships tied up in extended voyages reduce the supply of vessels available for other routes, driving up charter rates. This, in turn, inflates shipping costs, a burden that the consumer again bears.
Congestion and Delays
The aftermath of a canal closure typically involves significant congestion and logistical backlogs. This can lead to substantial delays, further disrupting shipping schedules and increasing operational costs.
Breaking the Supply Chain
Just-in-Time Inventory
Modern business models, such as just-in-time inventory systems, rely heavily on timely and predictable delivery of goods. The closure of the Suez Canal disrupts these delicate systems, leading to widespread shortages and inefficiencies.
Perishable Goods
The delay in shipping routes particularly impacts the delivery of perishable goods. This leads to wastage and disrupts food supply chains, affecting markets and consumers globally.
Manufacturing Delays
Industries dependent on specific components, such as automotive and electronics, are significantly impacted by delays in the delivery of these parts. This halts production lines, leading to broader economic repercussions.
Global Interconnectivity
The closure of the canal highlights the deeply interconnected nature of global trade. A disruption in a single yet crucial location can have far-reaching effects, impacting various sectors and economies worldwide.
Inflationary Pressures
Increased Transportation Costs
The surge in transportation costs due to longer shipping routes and heightened fuel consumption contributes to overall inflation, as these costs are typically transferred to the consumer.
Supply Shortages
Disruptions in supply chains can create shortages of various goods. According to the principles of supply and demand, reduced supply often leads to increased prices, contributing to inflation.
Speculative Increases
Anticipation and speculation about delays and shortages can trigger preemptive price increases. These speculative actions can exacerbate inflationary pressures even before actual shortages occur.
Economic Recovery Post-Pandemic
In a post-pandemic world, where economies are in various stages of recovery, the closure of a critical trade route like the Suez Canal compounds existing challenges, such as labor shortages and heightened consumer demand, further fueling inflation.
Broader Economic Implications
Global Trade Dynamics
The Suez Canal’s role in global trade dynamics is multifaceted. It’s a conduit for goods and a barometer for global economic health. Its closure signals deeper issues in international trade relations and economic stability.
Energy Markets
The canal is also vital for the transport of oil and natural gas. Its closure can disrupt energy markets, leading to fluctuations in energy prices globally. This domino effect affects industries and consumers alike, as energy costs are a fundamental component of almost every economic activity.
Long-Term Strategic Changes
Repeated disruptions may prompt companies to reassess their supply chain strategies. This might include diversifying shipping routes, increasing inventory levels, or even reshoring some manufacturing operations. While these strategies can mitigate risks, they also come with increased costs and complexities.
Environmental Impact
Longer shipping routes increase costs and have a significant environmental impact.
Wrap Up
Whether you own a business or are just looking after your investments, it’s paramount that you keep abreast of this situation.
Yes, a bunch of goatherders has just thrown a monkey wrench into the world’s economic works.
But this also represents an enormous opportunity to profit if you keep your head about you.
Look at the energy and transportation sectors. Look at precious metals. Look at other tangible assets and commodities, like copper.
While the Houthis are wreaking havoc on the West, you can protect your investments and profits before most people even know what’s happening.
