House passes gun control bill banning private sales of firearms.

Various rifles for sale at a gun show. Reuters. 

The House has passed a bill that would ban the private sales of firearms. Reuters. The bill passed 240-190 and now goes to the senate, where is is likely to face opposition in the GOP controlled Senate. The White House has also said they will veto the bill if it passes. Though the bill has little chance of passing into law it is the largest gun control bill that has gotten this far in a long time. 

The Republicans for their part managed to force an amendment to the bill that would notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if an illegal alien tried to buy a gun. This amendment passed after 26 Democrats joined the Republicans to pass it. This was seen as a major embarrassment for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats leadership as they had opposed the measure. 

My Comment:

This bill has little chance of passing. With an almost total ban of private sales this bill will be opposed by the GOP and vetoed by the president. Trump has already said he will veto this bill and others proposed by the Democrats. In order to overcome this, the Democrats would need to secure 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate. I could see a few GOP members betraying their base to pass this but not 50 in the house or 14 in the Senate. This is largely a symbolic vote that has no chance of becoming law. 

It is very hard to find a media outlet that is truthful about what this bill entails. Universal background checks is not a true accounting of the bill. A much more accurate name for it is a ban on private sales on firearms. There are a few exceptions, like inheritance, but this bill would make it so you can't sell your own gun without taking it to a firearms dealer first. If you did so you would be a criminal and even if you just lent a gun to someone without giving them a background check at first you could be criminally liable. 

Of course if the Democrats were actually serious about improving things they could have done something that would actually help. There is basically no reason why the background check system has to go through gun dealers. They could pass a law that opens up NICS to civilians so that if you wanted to you could file a background check on your own for free. 

This is pretty much the de-facto situation for most private gun sales. Most sellers on Armslist and other online gun websites insist on seeing a CCW permit, submit to a background check via court websites and/or make a bill of sale. Despite straw buyers being a problem, most people who sell their guns online are responsible and do not want their guns sold to someone who is irresponsible. And of course, any gun sold by a dealer, including all of those at gun shows, go through a federal background check. Opening up the NICS system would make it so anyone that wants a background check can do it, hopefully on your cell phone via a free app. 

I do wonder what the Democrats play here is. Gun owners are a very politically motivated group and are powerful enough to turn elections. Whatever complaints the gun community has against the GOP and President Trump, if they succeed in stopping this bill they will be very motivated to vote for Republicans to make sure that this bill doesn't pass after the 2020 elections. Given the natural advantage of incumbency, the possibility of a major 3rd party candidate and Trump's massive popularity among his base, you would think that the Democrats would avoid shooting themselves in the foot by trying to pass gun control bills. 

Which makes me question the timing of this bill. Doing it early in the term means that voters may forget about it by 2020. By passing this legislation, which has no real chance of becoming law, they are telling their gun hating constituents they are doing something without actually doing anything. They are banking on the short term political benefits of the bill will outweigh any long term consequences. I sincerely doubt that anyone in the gun rights community will forget about it though.

I do think it was pretty funny that the GOP managed to pass their amendment to the bill that would notify ICE when an illegal alien tried to purchase a firearm. This is one of those common sense things that would be law already if we had a functioning government, but unfortunately it's not likely to become law either.  

It did put House Democrats into a tough position though. Opponents of the amendment are basically saying that if you sell your gun to someone who is legally able to buy it, you should be thrown in prison. But if an illegal alien tires to buys a gun illegally? No problem! It's not surprising that some Democrats defected on this issue, but it's essentially status quo ante. Straw buyers are pretty much not prosecuted at all and Democrats have opposed it due to "sexism" concerns as they don't want to throw wives and girlfriends of felons buying guns into prison. Which is pretty sexist in itself. 

Still, I find it horrifying that the Democrats have gone so extreme on gun control. Conventional wisdom is that gun control is electoral poison and was a major reason why the Democrats lost control of congress during the Clinton years. And back when the Feds actually tried to crack down hard on the NFA laws during the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents, they incited one of the biggest terror attacks in American history. Obama didn't do anything on guns during his term due to this concern but it seems like the Democrats are forgetting this lesson. 

I have long said that gun rights is the most likely thing to ignite a civil war in the United States but the Democrats don't seem to care. Though I don't think a ban on private sales is enough to start a war, an assault weapons ban or any gun confiscation scheme probably would be. I sincerely hope that the Democrats never gain power again and if they do saner heads will prevail. 

Pakistan shoots down two Indian MIG-21's, captures one pilot.

Pakistani soldiers stand near the wreckage of a crashed MIG-21. AP/AFP/Getty.

Pakistan claims to have shot down two Indian MIG-21's and have captured at least one pilot. AP. The escalation comes after extremely high tensions and major shelling on the ground. India has confirmed that they lost one of their MIG-21's and that a pilot has been captured. An Indian helicopter crashed as well but it is unknown if that was related to the engagement, other combat or if it just crashed on it's own. Air traffic in the region has been rerouted and canceled entirely in Pakistan. Both sides have put out statements that they would like to avoid war but so far no deals have been made. 

My Comment:

Most of what I said yesterday morning about this issue still holds. We are still pretty far away from an open war between India and Pakistan. That's all still true. But it's closer today than it was yesterday. This is a major escalation, especially since Pakistan has at least one of the pilots was captured. This goes beyond artillery duels and airstrikes now. 

This is a breaking news story and because of that the situation is very confused. There are images floating around that shows a dead body but I can't confirm if it's one of the pilots or not. I also can't verify the video that I saw that claimed to be the captured Indian pilot. There have also been reports that a Pakistani F-16 was shot down, but that hasn't been widely reported and is likely fake news. With the situation rapidly developing and two massively populous countries spreading rumors like wildfire. It's very unclear what is happening right now for sure, other than at least one MIG got shot down and one pilot got captured. Everything else seems to be up in the air. 

Either way though, this is a major change in the trajectory of the conflict and it could be a turning point. It's very possible that India will feel the need to react to this and that reaction could cause a counter reaction and eventually that could lead to war. And a war could possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. That's not a likely scenario but it is one we have to start thinking about. 

What is needed are cooler heads and diplomatic efforts to calm things down. These efforts have already begun but who knows if they will work out. Indeed, Pakistani Prime Minster Imran Khan sounded more like a threat to me. I'll post it below. 

"I ask India: with the weapons you have and the weapons we have [emphasis added], can we really afford a miscalculation? Let's sit and settle this with talks."

I don't know if reminding India that they could get nuked if they miscalculate is a good think It seems like a major gamble that could either pay off or backfire horribly. On the one hand it could knock some sense into them and force them to the negotiating table, which would be the best outcome for everyone. On the other, it might make them think that the Pakistanis are planning a first strike. From what I understand Pakistan is one of only two countries in the world that both have nuclear weapons and have not vowed to strike first, with the other being Israel. Reminding people of that might force India's hand. 

I do think this crisis is very poorly timed. The United States and much of the world's diplomatic power is focused on North Korea right now. As President Trump helps make sure that one of the world's tinderboxes won't go up anytime soon, he is hampered in dealing with India and Pakistan. I don't know how much he could do since we aren't allies with either country, but it's still bad timing. 

Speaking of President Trump, the American media is downplaying this story despite how obviously dire the situation could get. Right now all they care about is a disgraced, disbarred and proven liar testifying before congress. Though I hope that war doesn't happen I will be grimly satisfied if it does and the media is caught flat footed. They refuse to cover stories by how important they are and this story is probably the most important one in the world right now, right up their with the North Korea summit. 

I will continue to monitor this situation and if something major happens I will probably blog about it. But for now I will probably just cover the story on Twitter if there aren't any earth shaking developments. 

Another hate crime hoax? LGBT activist of burning down his own home, killing his own pets.

An LGBT flag. The Hill/Getty.

Authorities are accusing a transgender gay rights activist of burning down his own home and killing his own pets in an apparent hate crime hoax. The Hill. The home of Nikki Joly burned down in 2017 and five pets died in the fire. The FBI initially investigated the incident as a hate crime after reports that Joly had been threatened for his LGBT activism. Due to his efforts to pass LGBT laws, Joly was awarded Citizen of the Year in Jackson Michigan. However, authorities have determined that Joly set the fire himself. The motive remains unclear but police have ruled out fraud as a motive since there was no insurance policy and Joly was renting and did not own the property. Some people have said that Joly was upset that a pride parade in Jackson was not protested against, though one of the people quoted withdrew the comments. Joly has been charged with 1st degree arson in the case. 

My Comment:

A quick note about the individual in this case. I am very confused which way this person goes in terms of pronouns. I think that Joly is a biological female that identifies as a man, but I honestly don't know. For the sake of clarity I will use the pronouns in the report I cited. Regardless of the politics of the situation, it's confusing either way. Despite being very uncomfortable with it I tend to go with whatever gender people identify just for the sake of not being confusing, but in this case I can't tell if I am doing so. What a mess. 

This is another fake hate crime in the same vein as the Jussie Smollett case. This one has some differences though. Smollett did what he did partially out of greed. He wanted a bigger paycheck and although politics was a major motivation, it wasn't the only one. 

In this case it seems as though Joly was motivated primarily by politics. My read on Joly is that he is a person who's whole identity is LGBT and doesn't have much of a life outside of activism. Such a person is threatened when their world view is challenged because not only are they proven wrong about a belief but because their whole life is challenged. 

If the witnesses are to believed, Joly took it personally that nobody protested a pride parade he organized. Normally that would be a good thing for any normal person, but that is not how Joly reacted. Clearly he believed that there was a massive proportion of the population that hates the LGBT population and when he found out that it didn't appear to be true he got upset. 

Generally speaking I think that worldview is pretty wrong. Most people are either supportive of LGB people or at least don't care. Less people approve of the transgendered but even if people don't like any of those groups very few are willing to risk the social, political and even legal consequences that harassing these people entails. Actual hate crimes against the LGBT community are rarer than they are claimed.

In short, Joly wanted a hate crime but the supply of people that actually hate the LGBT community wouldn't provide him one. So he made his own. In doing so he killed his own pets and burned down his own house. That's pure scumbag behavior and is probably even worse than what Jussie Smollett did. 

It appears that Joly is in pretty considerable legal jeopardy for this incident. He hasn't been convicted in this case but he has been charged with first degree arson. That's a pretty big felony but I think it should be a hate crime as well. His actions went beyond simply harming himself, but slandered millions of people who may not agree with every aspect of the LGBT coalition and also terrorized the people in his own community. How many gay, lesbian and transgender people heard about this incident and thought it could happen to them? His actions were hugely damaging to everyone and I hope they throw the book at him. 

India launches fighter jet attack on a Pakistani village in Kashmir.

Balakot, Pakistan. NPR/AP.

India has launched a fighter jet raid on a Pakistani village in Kashmir, dramatically raising tensions in the region. NPR. India claimed that the strike killed hundreds of militants though Pakistan says the raid was forced to turn back and drop their bombs in an open field. It is unclear which account is correct but local civilians reported one person wounded by shrapnel. The Indian attack was in response to a series of terror attacks, the worst one being a suicide bombing that killed 40 soldiers in Indian controlled Kashmir.  

My Comment:

There is some confusion as to where this attack occurred. Everyone agrees it happened in Balakot, but there are two villages named that in Pakistan. One is in Kashmir, the other is deeper in Pakistan. It seems as though the 2nd one was hit and if it was than it was the first time since the 1971 war that an Indian aircraft violated the border like that. Such confusion is typical in conflict but given the danger of the situation I wish we had better information. 

People are freaking out about this as they usually do whenever something happens like this. Obviously, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and the fear is that the situation will spiral out of control. That's the internet fear at least, but in this case is it likely?

I am not sure. India and Pakistan have had plenty of skirmishes in the past over Kashmir and even China has gotten into it as well and it hasn't led to a major war recently. But India and Pakistan have been to war before and you can't really rule it out either. There certainly is a lot of saber rattling going on via social media though.

The difference now is that India may have a decent casus belli that goes far beyond the typical border dispute. They have been suffering some pretty major terror attacks originating from across the Pakistani border and that's the kind of thing that can kick off a war. Especially if it continues. I am guessing the Indians believe that the Pakistanis are either responsible for the attacks or at the very least allowed them to happen. That's a pretty good reason for war and things could get hot very quickly. 

That being said, I still don't think all out war is likely and a nuclear one is even less likely. Despite the high tensions and saber rattling, peace has a way of prevailing and neither side wants the obvious downsides of a major war. Doing so would cost thousands of lives and greatly damage the economies of both countries. And even if there is a war it's a lot more likely it won't be an all out nuclear strike that devastates both countries. 

I think both sides realize that Pakistan would likely lose the war. Their military is much smaller than the Indians and less regarded as well. They do have powerful allies in the region, most notably China, but without their help I can't see them winning. Pakistan would be wise to try and find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. 

Despite the fact that I think a nuclear crisis is unlikely to say the least, I do have to point out that such a conflict wouldn't be the disaster that people think. India and Pakistan combined have 300 warheads and even if China were to get into it as well it wouldn't be the world ending disaster that people think of when it comes to nuclear war. It would certainly be a massive ecological, economic and humanitarian crisis the world has never seen before but humanity would survive just fine. There wouldn't be a "nuclear winter" and radiation levels would mostly be high in the region, not globally. I shudder to think about the refugee crisis that would result from such a conflict and that honestly scares me a lot more than the fallout... 

Still, it's not a good thing to be even talking about the possibility of war between India and Pakistan. It's clear that the Kashmir border region has overtaken Ukraine, Syria and Venezuela as the world's biggest tinderbox and with the danger of nuclear conflict pretty high it should be a high priority for everyone to avoid a major war. Let's hope cooler heads prevail. 

Nicolas Maduro says that the US government is fabricating a crisis against him in Venezuela

Nicolas Maduro talks with ABC News reporter Tom Llamas. ABC News.

Nicolas Maduro says that the United States government is fabricating a crisis in Venezuela in an attempt to take the countries oil. ABC News. Maduro's government has prevented food aid from entering the country and may close the borders with Brazil and Columbia Maduro has control of Venezuela but an opposition leader, Juan Guaido has been recognized internationally as interim president. Maduro said that President Trump was in charge of a "Klu Klux Klan" government but at the same time said that Trump was following Barack Obama's path and that he would extend a hand of dialogue. 

My Comment:

I'm not too impressed with Maduro's statements to ABC News. He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. You can't try to open up a diplomatic solution while at the same time calling Trump a Klansman. He's not going to win any friends doing that. 

And Maduro is wrong. The pressure on the Venezuela government isn't due to oil, it's due to the fact that his socialist government has largely destroyed his country. Oil isn't even an issue anymore since his government isn't able to produce anymore due to the fact that he spent his oil revenue on social programs instead of reinvesting into oil or even diversifying his economy. By failing to do so his country has completely run out of money and his people are now starving. 

Despite the crisis in Venezuela I don't see a war happening. Nobody wants a war and unless Maduro does something very stupid, like launch a war on his own terms. I have long said that Maduro might invade Guyana as a way out of his economic crisis. There is a long standing border dispute with Guyana and they small country has nowhere near the military that Venuzela has. If Maduro does make that choice he will be attacked by Columbia, Brazil and the United States. But that's about the only way I see war breaking out. 

What is critical right now is Venezuela's military. Right now they are supporting Maduro over Guaido, but that could change in the future. Sooner or later they will probably realize that they will have a better life if they back Guaido. Aid and economic opportunities will flood the country once Maduro is gone and the government stops being socialist. 

Until the military changes it's mind though, I think it's going to be status quo ante. President Trump doesn't want a war even if he does enjoy saber rattling. I haven't seen much polling about Venezuela but I can't imagine that there is much American support for war. 

War would likely be a disaster, mostly due to the refugee crisis it would create, or more accurately, make worse. Millions of Venezuelans have already fled the country due to the economic crisis and the abuses of the Maduro regime. It's not an outcome that anyone will want.   

On the other hand, I have to mention that the situation reminds me of the initial relation between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un. For awhile it looked like we might go to war with him as well. Now he and Trump are meeting in Vietnam and a peace deal looks likely. Something similar could be happening here. I don't think that Maduro has a chance of staying in power but it's possible that Trump could broker a deal where he at least gets to stay in Venezuela and leave power peacefully. 

Federal Judge rules that a male-only draft is unconstitutional.

A female soldier serving in Iraq in 2003. USA Today/AFP/Getty.

A federal judge has ruled that a male-only draft is unconstitutional. USA Today. The descion is the largest court case on the selective service since 1981's ruling that women did not have to sigh up for the draft since they were ineligible for combat roles. However, the Pentagon lifted the ban on women in combat and opened all roles to them in 2015. The case was brought by a men's rights group that felt the draft was discriminatory. The ruling did not decide on what should be done with the draft but a commission is working on the issue. The commission says that the status quo is unlikely and they will either open up the draft for women or they will get rid of draft registration entirely. The discussion is largely academic as there has not been an active draft since the 1970's. 

My Comment:

Back in 2015 I had mentioned to anyone who would listen that lifting the ban on women in combat roles would eventually lead to this outcome. The Federal government can not discriminate on sex unless they have a good reason to. With the removal of the ban on female combat roles, there was no way that the status quo was going to remain that way. 

I'm not going to revive the arguments against and for the inclusion of women in combat roles. The argument has essentially been settled in practice even if it is still a major debate. It seems unlikely that the question is going to be reversed anytime soon, even if the results of the change are mixed. 

With the argument being settled for the time being, at least in terms in policy, we all have to deal with the consequences. There are two ways out after this ruling. The first solution is to force women to sign up for the draft. Doing so would be a logistical nightmare. Getting women to sign up as they grow up would be fine but getting all the women between the ages of 18 and 25 would be difficult. It would solve the legal challenge but it would be a lot of work and cost a lot of money. 

The other major option is to just get rid of selective service entirely. America has had an all-volunteer military since 1973 and there aren't many reasons to keep it. Generally speaking, the chances that we would ever need to bring back a draft are pretty low. Getting rid of it could be an option. 

Of course if we were to have a major war breakout then we might regret getting rid of the draft. In the event of a war between us and Russia, China or a civil war they would probably have to bring the draft back. Such a war is almost unthinkable but not impossible so I doubt that they would get rid of the draft. My guess is that they will open up selective service to women. 

Regardless of the wisdom of letting women into combat roles, I do agree that if we are going to let them do so it would be discriminatory to draft only men. Indeed, even though I personally disagree with women in combat roles for practical reasons, I do think that it would be nice if women would pull their weight in warfare as well. Forcing them to register for the draft would be a good step, even if it was an almost completely symbolic one. 

Gun grabber Mark Kelly is running for Senate in Arizona

Mark Kelly. The Hill/Getty.

Gun control advocate and former astronaut Mark Kelly announced a run as a Democrat to try and unseat incumbent Senator Martha McSally in Arizona. The Hill. Kelly came to national prominence as a gun control advocate after his wife, congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in a mass shooting. Kelly tried to paint himself as a moderate leftist on issues such as immigration and climate change. He may not have an uncontested primary as Representative Ruben Gallego is also considering a run. Democrats think Kelly might have a chance due to the fact that the state elected Kyrsten Sinema to the senate in 2018. The term of the election would only be for two years as Martha McSally was appointed by the Governor to fill in for the late John McCain. 

My Comment:

Out of all the major political figures out there, only Michael Bloomberg is more hated by me. Like Bloomberg, Mark Kelly is one of the biggest critics of gun rights and represents a clear and present danger to the 2nd amendment. His views on gun rights alone should disqualify him from any elected office, let alone a senate seat. I find his cause to be absolutely disgusting and would never support him under any circumstances. 

I also think he's a pretty terrible person just on what he has done to his wife. It's clear that Gabby Giffords isn't in a position to do much of anything after he major injuries when Jared Lee Loughner shot her and 18 other people, killing 6 of them including a Federal Judge. The shooting left her brain damaged and I am not sure that her thoughts on gun control can actually be attributed to her. Giffords was a supporter of gun rights before she got shot and though getting shot might change someone's minds it's pretty clear she's not all there anymore. Either way, turning her into a political pawn to support one of the most evil positions in America today is distasteful to say the least. 

Furthermore, I greatly dislike how Kelly has used his position as a former astronaut to advance his political views. Space travel is something that should be celebrated by everyone and not tainted by politics. And Kelly has certainly not kept to that standard. His time as an astronaut was admirable but gave him no special insight into gun rights. 

The big question is can he win? I'm not sure he even gets the nomination. He may face a primary challenge from Ruben Gallego. He'd probably have a disadvantage there as Kelly is a straight white male in a party that no longer wants to be represented by them. Gallego appears pretty white to me but he is of Mexican and Colombian descent so he definitely counts as Hispanic. He's also a war hero who served in Iraq, which would play well to moderates who still respect that kind of thing. He's a gun grabber as well, but he might be more attractive to Arizona's Democratic party, which is full of Hispanics. To be clear, I don't want Gallego to win either but I expect him to have different priorities than gun control. 

If Kelly were to win the nomination he would go up against Martha McSally. Could he beat her? It's certainly possible as Arizona has trended left lately. They did just elect Kyrsten Sinema in a very close and potentially suspicious election. There is definitely a blue trend in Arizona that can't really be denied.  

The good news is that 2020 is an election year where the presidency will be up for grabs. President Trump's approval rating among Republicans is very high and they will turn out for him and that will help people downticket. 

I also think that Kelly's support of gun control will hurt him. It will cause some gun rights supporters that don't care too much about the GOP to come out and support McSally just because they want to keep their guns. He will likely face some major opposition from the NRA and other gun rights groups and they should be able to turn out the vote. 

Still, even if he loses there is a chance that he would run in 2022 where there won't be President Trump on the ballot to help Martha McSally. Given how Arizona is trending and the fact that the demographic changes in the state haven't stopped it's very possible that Mark Kelly could get elected. If so, it will be a very dark day for the American people and their right to keep and bear arms. 

North Korea is facing a food crisis... again.

A North Korean farm. Reuters.

North Korea is facing a food crisis as a major crop shortfall forces them to cut rations. Reuters. North Korea is short 1.4 million tons of food. The country said it would import 200,000 tons of food and grow early crops adding up to 400,000 more tons. They also said they would cut daily rations from 500 grams per day to 300. The UN claims that 10.3 million people in North Korea are in need and 41% of the population is undernourished. North Korea blames extreme weather and sanctions for the poor harvest that caused the crisis. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump will meet next week in an effort to end North Korea's nuclear program. 

My Comment:

A food crisis in North Korea is so common that it usually isn't that notable, but the timing is. North Korea has faced this kind of thing before and their usual response is saber rattling. Doing so would often gain them aid from South Korea and other countries but that isn't in the cards this time around. 

Instead, I expect this to be an additional pressure onto the North Korean regime to get a peace deal done. Though I don't think all of North Korea's problems can be blamed on sanctions, it's clear that they are making things much worse. Cooperating with President Trump on the nuclear issue may allow some sanctions to be lifted and allow food aid to come into the country. It will also allow North Korea to export some things so they can get some much needed cash. 

I think that one of the reasons why North Korea decided to finally come to the negotiating table. Under President Trump, it was clear that throwing a temper tantrum wouldn't work. Doing so had a chance of causing a war so the North Koreans quite wisely decided to take a different path. 

As for the meeting, I do expect some kind of deal to be made. Most likely there will be an end to the Korean War, which only ended in an armistice and not a full peace deal. Doing so will be a major step and I am guessing that North Korea will also make major concessions on their nuclear programs. 

Remember, these summits are mostly for show. If there wasn't an agreement in place, it would be extremely unlikely that Kim Jong Un and President Trump would even meet. There may be some small details to work out but I am guessing they will come to an agreement. There is always a chance that the whole thing falls apart but I think that is unlikely. My guess is that North Korea will make a deal, especially with this food crisis happening at the same time. 

Jussie Smollett charged with a felony for his role in an apparent fake hate crime.

Jussie Smollett. CBS News/Getty.

Actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with a felony count of disorderly conduct by filing a false police report in his fake hate crime hoax. CBS News. The 36 year old actor first mailed a fake letter using cut out letters from a magazine and a white powder that turned out to be an over the counter pain killer. When that plot failed to gain attention he apparently hired two Nigerian men to fake a hate crime involving violence, a noose, and bleach. The brothers admitted their role in the scam. Smollett blamed the attack on two white men who supported President Trump and used racist and homophobic language. Video was found that showed the two Nigerian brothers purchasing supplies that were used in the attack, including rope and red hats. If convicted Smollett could face up to three years in prison and would have to pay for the cost of the investigation. 

My Comment:

This may not be the end of the problems for Jussie Smollett. The letter he sent to himself could lead to federal charges as well. Sending a chemical/biological threat through the mail and forcing a hazmat response is not something the federal government is going to ignore. Even if the attack was a false flag, the feds are not going to screw around with something like this. They will likely throw the book at him. 

It seems likely that the Chicago police have gathered enough evidence to lead to a conviction. Let's review it quickly. Smollett's partners in this scheme have agreed to testify against him and were caught with much of the same items that were used in the staged attack. There is strong physical evidence that ties them to the crime and Smollett's social media posts will be used as evidence against him. 

Which makes me wonder where his defense lawyers will go with it. There seems very little doubt that Smollett is guilty of what he has been charged with unless there is some kind of exculpatory evidence we haven't seen. My guess is that the lawyers will try to go with jury nullification, which is where the jury agrees that a crime was committed but refuse to convict anyways. Since the trial will likely be in famously liberal Chicago, filled with people that hate President Trump and his supporters, there is a chance it will work. If so, it will be a major miscarriage of justice. 

One wonders though if Smollett worked alone. He has some pretty big connections including presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, as well as many contacts in the media. Though I don't think any of them would be that stupid to help him in this, I do think it probably warrants investigation. My guess is that Smollett came up with this plan on his own. 

I do think that Smollett should be charged with a hate crime. I don't think that's possible but it was clear that he was motivated by racism and bigotry. He wanted to paint Trump supporters and white people as racists and homophobes and he very well could have caused riots or violence if his story had been more widely believed. Thankfully, none of that happened, due in part to the cold weather. Had this happened in summer, it could have been a riot. 

I also think it is a very fitting punishment for Smollett if he is convicted for him to lose his voting rights, at least temporarily. Felons do get their voting rights back when they finish their sentence in Illinois, but I doubt that will happen before the 2020 election. Smollett ironically gave up his right to vote against President Trump by faking a hate crime against his supporters. And that's assuming he doesn't get hit with further federal charges...

Nick Sandmann, one of the Covington Catholic students, has filed suit against the Washington Post for $250 million.

Nick Sandmann (right) and Nathan Phillips. Reuters. 

Lawyers for Nick Sandmann, one of the Covington Catholic students, have filed a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post. Reuters. The lawsuit claims that Sandmann was wrongfully targeted and bullied by the paper in order to advance bias against President Donald Trump as Sandmann is one of his supporters. The Washington Post was one of many news outlets that claimed that Sandmann and others were racist and had harassed an American Indian activist, Nathan Phillips. However, video later showed that Sandmann had not said or done anything racist and Phillips had approached him. The video also showed that the Covington Catholic students were harassed by both the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black supremacist group, as well as members of Phillips group. Sandmann's lawyer, Lin Wood, said that other similar lawsuits against other news organizations are coming. 

My Comment:

Good news out of this case. What happened to Sandmann and the other Covington boys was a disgrace and I sincerely hope that he wins the $250 million in full. The Washington Post is one of many news outlets that pushed a lie about these boys and brought a major amount of harassment and danger for these boys. And it's very possible that the slander against Sandmann will last his entire life even after he has been vindicated. 

I think Sandmann has a good case. He wasn't a public figure and he was a kid so that means the libel/slander laws are a bit more loose. In America, our laws generally favor news outlets even when their behavior is reprehensible. Those laws are a lot more fair to plaintiffs when the people filing suit aren't public figures or are minors.

It's also clear that the Washington Post and other news outlets did not follow the guidelines of their profession. They did not wait to confirm any details of the story and did not interview the people involved in the case other than Nathan Philipps. They didn't talk to the Black Hebrew Israelites or the boys themselves but did contribute to the social media outrage against them. It was horrible behavior and they deserve to be punished for it. 

Unfortunately, The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men in the world, even after losing half of his wealth in his divorce. Even though the $250 million lawsuit is exactly what the paper was bought for by Bezos, and he overpaid, he has enough money to keep them afloat anyways. $250 million is a huge amount of money but it's not enough to put them out of business, which is what they deserve. 

This also means that the Post is going to have a team of experienced lawyers who will be experts in trying to delay and litigate this until Sandmann gives up. Normally they would use this strategy to drain the funds of the plaintiff but since Lin Wood has taken the case pro-bono, I doubt it will work. Still, given how complex this lawsuit is and the fact that many other companies and individuals are going to get sued as well, a settlement might happen. 

Other news outlets might not be so lucky. There are a lot of news outlets that aren't backed up by one of the richest men in the world. It's very possible that some of these smaller outlets could go out of business, like Gawker did when Hulk Hogan sued them. My sincere hope is that happens to some of these news outlets and to some of the celebrities and twitter blue checkmarks go bankrupt as well... 

Last ISIS holdouts in Syria holding civilians as human shields.

Syrian Kurdish SDF fighters. AFP. 

The last ISIS fighters in the sliver of land still controlled by the terror group are not allowing hundreds of civilians trapped with them to leave. BBC. 200 families are stuck with the remaining 300 ISIS fighters near the village of Baghuz. The civilians are not being allowed to leave by ISIS. There had been reports that a deal had been offered where the remaining ISIS fighters would be evacuated to rebel held Idlib province but a spokesman for the US backed SDF said that the ISIS fighters would either be killed or forced to surrender and no deal was forthcoming. The spokesman also said that they were attempting to evacuate as many civilians as possible and would be holding off on their offensive until that task is complete. 20,000 people from formerly held ISIS territory have been evacuated, many of them being wives and children of ISIS fighters. 

My Comment:

A quick update on the fight against ISIS. It seems the battle to liberate the last sliver of territory has stalled out, for predictable reasons. Once again, the obsession with civilian casualties is slowing down an attack. In this case, it makes sense though as ISIS is totally surrounded and cannot feed or arm themselves and have nowhere left to run too. There is no reason to not wait them out. This does mean that President Trump was wrong about the last ISIS territory being liberated on his timetable but given the circumstances it's understandable. 

I am glad that the rumors yesterday of an evacuation deal for ISIS fighters turned out to be false. These ISIS fighters honestly deserve no quarter, though I do think that their surrender would be accepted. These are horrible people and quite frankly, they deserve whatever is coming to them. More pragmatically though, the last thing we need is these ISIS fighters to go to Idlib province, where the US has little sway, so they can regroup, rearm or even rejoin with al-Nusra Front. None of those things would be good for the United States and I hope that this is the last talk we hear about an evacuation deal. 

The big question is what to do with all of the survivors. Some of these men will likely surrender instead of die in battle and their wives and children are there too. Many of these ISIS fighters are foreign nationals and that may be why they are fighting so hard. They are facing long prison sentences, at best, and possibly execution, at worst, depending on where they are from. It's a tough question and not one I would want to have to answer. 

One also wonders if ISIS's spiritual and military leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is with these holdouts. Baghdadi has been reported dead dozens of times and hasn't been seen on video in a long time. But he is reported to be alive and if he is with them then I hope he is captured alive. Though the man deserves death, he should be put on trial and be forced to answer for a multitude of crimes, not the least of which are his terror attacks and war crimes. My guess is that he will either be killed in the fighting, kill himself, or will end up having been dead all along. 

The good news is that after Baghdadi and his men are killed/captured/surrender, we no longer have much of a reason to stay in Syria. President Trump seems eager to pull our troops out and with ISIS being gone we can finally do so. Actually getting out of one of our Mideast adventures would be a great move for our foreign policy and a major campaign promise fulfilled. ISIS will still exist and we will probably fight them wherever they pop up, but at least we can get out of the massive meat grinder that is Syria right now.  

Tensions rise between India and Pakistan after recent terror attacks in Kashmir.

A building burns after a battle between Kashmir militants and Indian troops. New York Times/AP.

After two deadly terror attacks in Kashmir, relations between India and Pakistan have deteriorated. New York Times.  An Indian Army Major was killed along with at least three other soldiers days after a bombing that killed dozens of Indian soldiers. India has accused Pakistan of orchestrating the violence in the Kashmir region. Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan and is a majority Muslim area while India is majority Hindu. The violence has resulted in a wave of nationalism and harassment of Pakistanis. Both India and Pakistan have withdrawn their ambassadors.

My Comment:

This story hasn't gotten much play in Western media but I think it's an important story. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals and a major breakdown in their relations is important. I don't think an actual war is likely, but even a chance of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is newsworthy.

Though I have never bought the idea that a nuclear war would end human life on earth, it would still be a very bad thing. Millions of people would die in India and Pakistan and the nuclear fallout could contaminate other countries in the region. And neither country has enough nuclear weapons to actually win the war so it wouldn't even stop the fighting. 

Despite the obvious devastating effects such a war would have on the populations of India and Pakistan, it would also extend far beyond the Indian sub-continent. The global economy would likely be wrecked and any country that relies heavily in trade with India and/or Pakistan would see major economic damage. And there is a chance that other countries could use the disruption to settle old scores. 

Still, it's not like war is in the interest of India or Pakistan. They both know that war would be devastating to either side and wouldn't really do anything to solve their problem. The hatred between Muslims and Hindus isn't going to go away even after a major war. 

Kashmir is one of the major tinder boxes in the world right now being disputed territory with many militants causing problems. These terror groups want independence or to fully join Pakistan and tens of thousands of people have died in the past in the area. As long as that is the case there is a chance of a wider war. 

Reports say that Empire actor Jussie Smollett staged an attack against himself.

Jussie Smollett. The Hill/Getty.

Chicago police now believe that Jussie Smollett, an actor on the Empire TV show, hired two people to stage a fake hate crime against himself. The Hill. Smollett claimed that two white men had attacked him, put a noose around his neck, poured bleach on him and yelled racist and homophobic things at him. However, two black men were arrested after the investigation and it was found that they had purchased the rope. CNN reported that the police now believe that Smollett staged the attack and police have confirmed that the direction of the investigation has shifted due to statements given by the two men. Police had denied earlier reports that said the same thing but have now changed their statements. Motives for the incident were unclear. 

My Comment:

I've avoided talking about this case until now because it seemed so clear that we weren't getting the whole story. Smollett's initial claims were that he was outside early in the morning and had been attacked by two white men. Those supposed white men attacked Smollett because they knew who he was and hated that he was gay all the while saying that Chicago was "MAGA Country". They then let him go and he reported it to police. 

None of that made any sense at all. First of all, the chances that a couple of Trump supporting white people would be walking around that late at night in the first place is extremely slim. Illinois and Chicago especially, are hugely supportive of Democrats and Trump supporters would be outnumbered by a massive amount. There just aren't that many Trump supporters there. 

Second of all, what are the chances that anyone would even recognize Smollett in the first place? He's the third lead on a show that basically nobody that supports Donald Trump watches. I personally have never seen the show, and had no idea who Smollett even was. I vaguely aware that Empire existed but I had no idea what it was about and who stared in it and I doubt many other people that support Trump did either. Smollett claimed that he was well known to Trump supporters because of how critical he was of the president, but I had never seen him on social media either. As far as I know he didn't exist before this incident. 

Third, this event happened during some of the worst weather we have seen this year. It was during the polar vortex weather event where there was a lot of cold temperatures and snow. The idea that there are wandering gangs of white MAGA supporters out in Chicago during some of the worst weather of the year boggles the mind. 

Finally, there would be little reason for MAGA supporters to do this in the first place. Trump is pretty damn tolerant of gays and blacks and has tried to peel them away from the Democrats. How successful that has been is up in the air but it's not like Trump hates gays or black people. I mean Trump supports Gay Marriage and passed a crime reform bill because he felt that black people were being treated unfairly. Not the actions of someone who hates gays and blacks.  And even if a couple of his supporters did, why would they try to associate an attack with Trump? Even the most dimwitted supporters would understand how counterproductive that is. 

The story never made sense but pointing that out is risky these days. Many people that did risked having their social media accounts banned even though it was clear that something odd was up. "Listen and believe" isn't just something feminists say about rape/sexual assault, now we automatically have to believe accusations of assault and racism without evidence as well. 

I have never bought into that belief system. We should question everything and this case is another reason why. Indeed, I still have reservations about this post just because the lead media outlet reporting it is CNN. If it hadn't been for the fact that the Chicago police had issued a statement essentially confirming CNN's reporting I wouldn't have even written this post up.

Indeed, it seems as though the media and the blue checkmark brigade didn't learn their lessons from the Covington Catholic boys scandal. In that case they all got sucked into a story that didn't really make sense in the first place and then were proven wrong pretty conclusively. Some of those people said and did some horrible things in that incident and may end up getting sued for it. Given the fallout from that case, why on earth would anyone not wait a bit until an investigation was done? To be fair the media coverage of this case was a lot more cautious than in the Covington incident but as far as pundits and celebrities on Twitter? They didn't learn a damn thing. 

One wonders though, what in God's name was Smollett trying to accomplish? The supposed motive has been debunked by the producers of Empire who said that Smollett wasn't getting written off the show. With that being the case what could motivate someone to do this? 

My guess is that it is a combination of pure hatred of white male Trump supporters, along with the power and respect progressives give "victims" that caused him to hire these two Nigerian men to fake a hate crime. He was probably projecting his own faults onto them. 

Carl Jung talked about the "Shadow Archetype" which is the part of your personality that you hate and keep hidden and is often projected onto others. Thought I don't buy all of Jung's theories, I think that in this case it's probably pretty apt. In this case I think Smollett probably has a lot of hate and would very much like to do what he accused others of doing to him. My guess is that he just hates Trump and his white supporters so much that he wanted to do something to hurt them. In his world he thinks that people hate him as much as he hates everyone else when in reality nobody thinks about him at all. 

It's also clear that Smollett doesn't really understand Trump supporters at all and likely has never even talked to one in person. Twitter trolls might indeed say some of the things that were said to them but those are trolls and aren't representative of anything other than trolls. The idea that anyone who supports Trump would be stupid enough to attack Smollett like this in the first place and would do it in a way designed for maximum media outrage is just outrageous. 

I am hoping that Smollett does have to face some criminal and civil charges for this if the story of him paying two men to attack him is confirmed. All this incident did was further inflame the culture wars and incite racism. That is the last thing we need right now and I hope that Smollett gets the book thrown at him. In a perfect world he would get the same charges that any real attackers would have gotten. 

Mass shooting in Illinois kills five people.

Swat officers at the scene of the crime. BBC/Getty.

A mass shooting in Aurora Illinois ended with the suspect and five people killed along with six police officers wounded. BBC. The suspect was Gary Martin, a 45 year old former employee of Henry Platt Company, a pipe making company. He may have been armed with a pistol with a laser sight. Martin's motive is unknown but his position had been eliminated two weeks ago and his family said he was "stressed out". When police arrived to the scene of the crime they were shot at by the suspect before killing him. Five officers were wounded by gunfire while another suffered a knee injury before shooting and killing the suspect. 

My Comment:

I have a standing rule to not comment on mass shootings unless I have something important to say. This is because I believe that mass shootings spread memeticlly and media coverage of these events contribute greatly to them. I don't think it is a coincidence that this attack occurred just a day after the anniversary of the Parkland shooting Florida. Gun control and mass shootings were in the news for days ahead of this and could have been what pushed this guy over the edge. He was already angry but may not have done anything at all if it wasn't for everyone talking about mass shootings. 

So why talk about this at all even though there is a risk associated in doing so? First of all the difference of outcome in this case and the Parkland shooting is obvious. In the Parkland case officers stood around and never entered the school as Nikolas Cruz killed children. In this case, the officers bravely charged into the fire and took the attacker out. Had Martin been given the time to kill more people he likely would have had a much higher body count. I have great respect for the officers involved in this case. Despite the danger they did exactly what they are supposed to do. 

I have always said that the way to deal with these mass shootings is to attack the gunman. Doing so will either kill the gunman, which will stop the threat, or buy time for people to escape. And many of these mass shooters either surrender or kill themselves when faced with resistance. Police can't be timid when one of these events happen and should do everything they can to engage with the shooter and put him down. 

Of course having civilians with guns helps as well. Illinois has concealed carry but it doesn't appear that anyone here was able to fight back. Either nobody had a CCW permit and/or the business forbids carrying a weapon. Illinois is a shall issue state but was the last state to allow concealed carry so it's very possible that nobody here was armed. If they had been the death toll might have even been smaller. 

This will likely result in more gun control in Illinois, which is already one of the worst states for gun rights. We don't have much information about how Martin got his firearm, but if he got it legally in Illinois then he went through a background check. Illinois gun control didn't prevent this attack and no further laws would have done anything to prevent this attack.

Race is another reason to talk about this attack. Martin is black and I am guessing that fact is going mean that this story is going to go away soon. The main media narrative is that mass shootings are a white male problem so when a non-white does one of these attacks happens, it gets memory holed. That might not happen locally since the Democrats control the government in that state and will do anything to pass gun control. Nationally though, this story won't be anything but a memory by next week.  

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warns that the next Democratic president could declare a national emergency on guns.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has warned that the next Democratic president could declare a national emergency on guns in response to President Trump's declaration of a border emergency. The Hill. Pelosi claimed that gun violence is an emergency and that the next Democratic president could agree with her. Pelosi said she didn't advocate a president doing so, but did admit that it was possible. President Trump declared a national emergency on immigration in response to congress failing to fully fund the border wall with Mexico and reports of multiple illegal immigrant caravans. 

My Comment:

This seems like an obvious scare tactic from Nancy Pelosi. Generally speaking, I think immigration is an issue that the Democrats have lost on and they also know there is very little they can do to stop President Trump from building the wall now. She's trying to divide Trump and his pro-gun supporters in a rather obvious way. 

That being said, it is a good reason for gun rights supporters to not want a Democratic president in 2020 or beyond. Nobody wants a president who will declare a national emergency against gun rights. Such a thing is possible as declaring national emergencies are legal and relatively common. Before Trump declared this one on the wall, there were also 31 other emergencies, so it's not like these things are uncommon or anything.

What that national emergency would entail is a mystery. The nightmare scenario where some kind of gun confiscation scheme comes into effect would be extremely unlikely. Democrats know that would be national suicide, both for their party and for the country itself. Assuming that the country didn't immediately devolve into civil war or a coup d'etat, the now conservative Supreme Court (which may be 6-3 by the time Trump is out of office) will likely stop any attempt to confiscate guns via the executive branch via emergency. Even with the more peaceful solution, it would likely cause an immense backlash and it would be a miracle if the country didn't devolve into chaos if they even tried it. 

More likely is that a national emergency will secure funds for something. My guess is that it would be used bring back biased research into gun violence. Such research was stopped by the GOP due to it being incredibly biased and bad science, but an executive order could start it up again. 

I don't buy Pelosi's argument that there is an emergency with gun violence. The majority of gun deaths in America are suicides with self defense and police shootings being another decent faction. Actual gun violence deaths are fairly rare and have been dropping for years now. And mass shootings, though headline grabbing, are extremely rare. It's way different then thousands of people massing to illegally enter the country. 

Of course to declare an emergency, a Democratic president needs to be elected. I think that is pretty unlikely for 2020 but it's obviously possible for 2024. And there are varying levels of support for gun control in the Democratic Party. There are a few candidates for president that I don't see doing an emergency declaration like this. 

Still though, this is mostly just posturing from Nancy Pelosi. She knows she got played by Trump and understands that even the courts won't likely be on her sides now. Unlike her party, Trump has SCOTUS and a growing advantage in the lower courts. She knows she has lost and she is just throwing a tantrum. I expect very little to come of this. 

Covington Catholic school boys exonerated by church investigation.

The incident showing Nick Sandmann and Nathan Philips. LA Times/AP. 

The Covington Catholic school boys have been exonerated by an investigation by the Kentucky Catholic diocese. LA Times. The students were tarred as racist after video showing a confrontation between the boys and American Indian activist Nathan Phillips. In the initial confusion before more information came out, the Catholic Diocese condemned the boys. However, more video showed that the boys were being harassed by the Black Hebrew Israelites and were approached by Phillips and did not harass him. The investigation was conducted by a contracted company and they preformed 240 hours worth of interviews with students and witnesses as well as reviewing 50 hours of video. the report found that the boys did nothing wrong and were confused by Nathan Phillips. 

My Comment:

Independent confirmation to what we all ready knew. The entire situation was essentially fake news with the narrative that spread in the media and on twitter was essentially fake news. These boys were painted as racists and now have been essentially completely exonerated. 

I don't know if this lets the Catholic diocese off the hook. They jumped the gun to say the least and they are among the groups likely to be sued by the students. They called these boys racists and that was the absolute wrong thing to do. Even if the LA Times report was correct and they were being harassed, that's not an excuse for slander. 

I do worry that people haven't even realized that these boys were exonerated. Some of those people can't be reached because they will always believe because of the race and politics of the people involved the Covington boys will always be wrong and Nathan Phillips will always be right. You will never be able to convince them of anything. But there are a lot of people out there that might look at the evidence but simply haven't seen it. 

In retrospect this event seems to have been a watershed moment. Things have not been going well for the left lately and the media is actually covering it. Though I don't know for sure, I do think that the negative coverage over the various scandals the Democrats wouldn't have been possible without this event. The media are trying to prove they really are fair because they know they will soon have to defend themselves in court. 

Speaking of court, I am sincerely hoping that the lawsuits filed will bring down some individuals and organizations. People are backtracking, including the Catholic Church, but I see it mainly as a way to avoid losing millions when they eventually lose a court case. 

Finally, I also heard that Nathan Phillips himself is going to be sued as well. I consider him to be responsible for this and his motivation was to cause a media circus. He still calls these boys racist even though it has been pretty conclusively proven to be otherwise. I don't believe that he believes that they are, he just wants the media gravy train to continue. I sincerely hope that he gets taken to the cleaners... 

Message I received from my congressman.

Since I occasionally send messages to my elected officials, they sometimes send something to me. In this case I got sent a e-mail about taxpayer funded trips during government shutdowns. Mike Gallagher introduced a bill that would prevent this in the future and asked if I supported it. It's obviously in response to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's attempted foreign policy trip in the middle of the shutdown. Here's the e-mail:

I obviously selected no as I have always said that congress should prioritize ending any government shutdowns over pretty much anything else other than a foreign policy emergency or major natural disaster. It's good legislation and I hope it passes. I have no idea if it would or not but it should have bipartisan support. People hate shutdowns and want them to end as soon as possible. They don't want to see members of congress running across the world when the government isn't running. 

Usually this wouldn't be that notable but people always seem to like to read what my elected officials send me. Expect a short post like this whenever I get something from my congressman, senators or whoever. 

Will America elect a female president in 2020?

Senator Kamala Harris

One of my friends and readers had this question for me today...

With all of female Democrats who have announced/will announce bids for presidency, what are the odds that a) the 2020 Democratic nominee is a woman, and b) that the 2020 presidential winner is a woman?

So early in the campaign season, this is a difficult question to answer. The 2nd question is a bit easier to ask as we can avoid the quagmire that is the Democratic field right now. Ignoring them for a bit, can we guess if the GOP candidate will be a female candidate or that a third party female could win the nomination?

The GOP question is easy to answer. President Trump almost certainly has a lock on the nomination and will not likely face a serious primary challenger, let alone a female one. Trump's base approval rating among voters was 52% as of yesterday according to Rasmussen but his approval among the GOP has been in the 80 to 90% range. With numbers like that I don't see a serious challenge coming during the primaries.

Furthermore, I struggle thinking of  a credible female candidate who is both conservative and anti-Trump. Most of the die-hard anti-Trump conservatives have pretty much either left the party or have been kicked out. I can't really think of any credible candidates. Carly Fiorina ? Ann Colter? I have no idea. If there is a primary challenger it's going to be an establishment male from the GOP. Think Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

I should also point out there is a small possibility that Trump could decline to run, resign, get impeached or, God forbid, die. If that happens then the GOP field is wide open. In that case it is possible that a female could run if for some reason Mike Pence doesn't want to. That's about the only way I could see the next president being a female Republican and I don't see any of those options being likely outcomes.

As for third parties, I can't see any of them winning with a woman. Jill Stein could run again, but I don't see her winning much of anything. She got 1% of the popular vote and no electoral votes and I don't see that changing in 2020. And I haven't even heard that she is running yet, the Green Party may nominate someone else. The other major third party, the Libertarians, hardly ever seem to draw female voters, let alone female candidates. I can't see a woman winning the nomination for that party, let alone winning the presidency.

Now for the Democrats. As of this posting five women have announced their campaigns for president (or exploratory committees in one case). In no particular order they are, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Kristen Gillibrand (exploratory committee), Amy Klobucher and Elizabeth Warren. It is also very likely that more women will announce they are running, with Stacy Abrams and, ugh, Hillary Clinton being the biggest speculative candidates.

However, none of those women are front runners right now. Every poll I have seen has put Joe Biden in first place, even though he hasn't announced. Plus, the field of men is large. Only four have declared so far but there are many more waiting in the wings, like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders.

I also think that the establishment has made itself very clear that they don't want three of these women to win. Warren, Gabbard and Harris all had major scandals erupt (or reignite in Warren's case) right around when they announced their candidacy. Warren had the American Indian controversy, Gabbard got the "Russian Bot" slander and Harris got exposed as sleeping her way to the top with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. All of these reports originated from left wing media (even if my sources aren't) and all of them seem to me to show a rejection of these candidates.

Why? I think all three of them are seen as threats to the establishment in some way. Warren's biggest flaw was the American Indian scandal that would have killed her campaign if it broke out after the candidate. By exposing it now they either knock her out of the race or at the very least give her plenty of time to react to the scandal. Given Warren's similarity to Hillary Clinton and President Trump's unique skill against her (seriously, Warren has completely failed to not take the bait every time Trump trolls her) they may realize she doesn't have a chance to win.

Gabbard is a threat due to her foreign policy. She's similar to President Trump in rejecting regime change as an option and not seeing Russia as the worst thing in the world, but even more so than Trump. Trump has been reluctant to start any new wars but Gabbard would absolutely refuse (which is why I admire her more than most Democrats). The party wants to destroy her now using the same tactics they tried to destroy President Trump with by implying that she is somehow compromised by them since she isn't chomping at the bit to go to war with them.

As for Harris, I am not quite sure why her story got published. She seems like a decent choice for the Democrats as she is both a minority and a woman. There is also some question if she is even eligible to run for president as both of her parents weren't citizens when she was born even though they became citizens later. Though various fact checking organizations say that theory of eligibility is wrong, it could come up as a legal challenge for her (similar to Ted Cruz's situation in 2016 had he won). Given the ambiguity of the law and the makeup of the Supreme Court it is no guarantee that she would win any court case and even if she did it would taint her presidency. Perhaps the Democrats want to avoid that headache? Or maybe they just don't want to deal with her sex scandal at all?

As for Gillibrand and Amy Klobucher, I don't see either of them as a serious candidate. Neither of them have any name recognition and are overshadowed by bigger, more established candidates. And I doubt that if/when Hillary Clinton enters the race at some point that she will do well after failing so many times. And Stacy Abrams is pretty much a joke as a failed candidate for Governor. I can't see her winning either.

Regardless though, it doesn't matter who wins if I think that President Trump is going to win reelection regardless. The Democrats have a lot going against them right now and the biggest is the natural advantage of incumbency. The only candidate in recent history to lose a 2nd term was George Bush 41. He lost mostly because of credibly third party run by Ross Perot and breaking his campaign promises.

There is a  possibility of a third party challenge this year. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is exploring a run as an independent but if he does I don't see him drawing many Trump voters. He's a center-left globalist and Trump's base are center-right populists. He would draw many more from the Democrats than the GOP, which is obvious if you have paid attention to the hysterical tone being used against him in the media. He's not a threat to President Trump but he's a huge problem for the Democrats.

Trump also has the advantage of being loved by his base. Most people that voted for him seem to want to do so again and he has kept quite a few of his campaign promises. He has lowered our taxes, punished outsourcing, enforced immigration, destroyed ISIS and kept us out of new wars. He hasn't gotten the wall built but that isn't from lack of trying. Most Trump voters have very little to be unhappy with him so unless he really screws something up, like signing a major gun control bill or totally giving up on immigration, he should be fine.

The Democrats have also been fairly scandal ridden lately. I have gone over those scandals enough already but if they continue long enough they could drive more people away from the Democratic Party or at least make them stay home on Election day.

I also have to say that with so many candidates and none of them being as charismatic and popular as President Trump was in 2016, it's very possible that all the candidates vying for the nomination will bring each other down. In order to stick out from the crowd they will either have to attack each other or go so far to the left that they aren't electable. It will be a bunch of crabs in a bucket dragging each other down anytime one of them starts to stand out. At the end the survivor will likely be too weak to fight President Trump successfully. This process is the other interpretation of the Warren, Gabbard and Harris stories as opposed to rejection from the party.

Finally, I think that there is a very good chance that the Democratic establishment will choose a candidate that won't represent all the wishes of the Democratic coalition. That already happened in 2016 with Bernie Sanders and probably cost them the presidency as Sanders getting screwed by the party left the economic leftists out in the cold. Many of them stayed at home or voted against the Democrats and the party fragmented a bit. With the prominence of the social justice left (I call them the "woke" left) it will be very hard for an establishment candidate to please both the Sanders style economic leftist and the woke social justice left while keeping their more mainstream establishment neo-liberals on board. It's very possible that the whole party implodes entirely and splits.

So do I think the 2020 election will end with a female president? It's a long shot and extremely unlikely. There is almost no chance of Trump not being the GOP candidate and I don't see a credible third party female winning. And even if a woman wins the Democratic ticket, unlikely due to the obscurity of two of them and the apparent rejection of the other three, they would have a very difficult time pushing out President Trump. It's not impossible but 2020 is not the year America elects a female president unless something extraordinary happens.

President Trump sees a boost in approval ratings after State of the Union, Democratic missteps.

President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump has seen a bump to his approval rating in the past couple of days. Rasmussen shows that President Trump's approval rating is 52%, the highest he has seen since the first weeks of his presidency.  It comes after much lower numbers during the government shutdown that had him at 43% approval. Other polls have a similar bounce in approval for the president.

So what caused this? I think part of it was the government shutdown ending. Shutdowns are never good for a President's popularity and this one was no exception. It doesn't matter what the cause is or what other players are involved. The president gets the blame for it when the government isn't working. It probably cost Trump around 5 to 7.5% in his approval rating. 

Trump also had a very good State of the Union speech. It was a unifying speech and one that wasn't all that partisan. Pretty much everyone loved it and it even had the Democrats in congress yelling "USA!" at points. It was one of his best speeches and ranks up there as one of the best State of the Union speeches period. 

However, Trump has been helped by a number of huge missteps and scandals by the Democrats. One of these was the passage of a late term abortion bill and the Virginia Governor's comments on a proposed bill in that state. Abortion is a hot button issue and becomes a lot less popular when it is done. Preforming an abortion at nine months is hugely controversial and many people consider it to be infanticide. I'm not getting into the issue that much but I am sure that by looking so horrible to pro-lifers and even some pro-choicers, the Democrats probably pushed some people towards President Trump. 

Speaking of Virginia, the state is having massive problems. Both Governor Northam and Attorney General Herring have gotten involved in blackface and Klu Klux Kaln scandals. And the Lt. Governor Farifax has a #metoo scandal. Virginia is such a mess that they have managed to damage the Democrats image as a whole. 

The Democrats in Virginia have alienated their black and social justice supporters who think that blackface is racist (and, once again, the KKK). Women will be turned off by the #metoo scandal and everyone else will be against the 3rd trimester abortion/infanticide bill. 

Of course it's not just Virginia that has caused problems. The Democrats freshmen congresswomen have put their feet in their mouths as well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the inexplicably famous congresswoman from New York released her "Green New Deal" plan and that went over horribly. Indeed, people thought it was a parody of a Democratic policy proposal with gems like banning air travel, getting rid of nuclear power and even mandating that ALL buildings have to be updated to be energy efficient. Such a plan would cost trillions of dollars all in the name of global warming which many people don't either care about or believe in.  

Finally, a freshman congresswoman and Muslim from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, is caught up in an antisemitism scandal. Though I didn't find her comments to be all that offensive, AIPAC is a major lobby group after all, she did manage to piss off both Jewish people and their supporters. America has a very low tolerance for even the appearance antisemitism and this is probably affecting things as well. 

And we cannot forget the Covington school scandal where the media, leftists and twitter blue checkmarks all lost their minds for about 72 hours. Targeting random boys who did nothing but stand there and wear MAGA hats with threats, harassment and other acts of insanity was a huge scandal and is one that isn't going away. I think it was a major wakeup call for people that finally realized that even despite his flaws, at least Trump is, well, sane in comparison.

All of these scandals help Trump in multiple ways. The obvious one is that people are going to leave the Democrats if they keep making own goals on themselves like this. Putting your foot in your mouth all the way up to your ankle isn't the way to win support. 

A secondary effect of this is probably even more helpful. The media has essentially been forced to cover the Democrats for once due to these huge misteps. That means the constant calls of racism, sexism and complaints about Russia have faded into the background. Indeed, I noticed the phenomenon when the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were happening. As the media worked overtime to attack Kavanaugh and destroy his life, they were no longer able to attack President Trump. I think something similar is happening now. Just imagine how well Trump's approval rating would be if they gave him a fair shake or the fawning coverage they gave Barack Obama... 

Either way though, the high poll numbers seem to be a good thing for President Trump. With another shutdown likely to be avoided (breaking news tonight) and the Mueller probe slowing down, it's likely that Trump's numbers will remain high into the 2020 election. With the Democrats in disarray and his approval literally high, plus the natural advantage of incumbency, Trump seems like he will be elected again in 2020.