Sunday, March 31, 2019

Joe Biden denies #MeToo allegation that he kissed a Democratic lawmaker without her consent.

Former Vice President Joe Biden. Reuters. 

2020 presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden has denied an allegation that he kissed a Democratic lawmaker without consent. Reuters. Biden was accused by Lucy Flores who was a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Flores claimed that at a campaign rally, Biden walked up behind her, sniffed her hair and then kissed the back of her head. Biden says he did not recall the incident and he also said that during his many years interacting with people he feels he has never acted inappropriately. Biden said that despite that, he was willing to listen to women and said they do not always see things the same way men do. 

My Comment:
This whole situation is hilarious to me. It's very clear that the Democratic Party is tearing itself apart over this incident and it's may have even derailed Joe Biden's presidential run before it even started. I have said for years now that this issue was going to burn Biden if he runs and it's clear that it is happening. What isn't clear is if this will take him down or not. 

I don't really buy Biden's apology. He says he doesn't remember the incident in question, which is very likely and believable enough. Biden's met hundreds of people and glad-handed with many of them. What isn't likely is that Biden didn't do what he is accused of it. There are dozens of videos of Biden doing the exact same thing to other women and girls. It's fairly unlikely that Flores would be lying about something that he's proven to have done many times. 

Will Biden saying he will listen to women help him? I doubt it. It's not quite an admission of guilt but it is an admission that he thinks men are bad, which is essentially the same thing. And the people that actually care about this kind of thing won't accept anything less than a total apology and removal from polite society, and even then he still won't win them over. 

Biden won't do either of those things but I also don't see him doing what works when you are involved in a scandal like this. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Brett Kavanaugh had similar accusations against them and they all survived. How? They fought back. They showed that they were outraged by the accusations, denied them and pointed out the political timing of the accusations against them. It helps that in all three of those cases the men were likely innocent while Biden is guilty as hell (at the very least he's done what he's accused of before, even if the accusation by Lucy Flores is up in the air), but still, it seems to be the only way to fight these kinds of sexual scandals. 

Some of the other 2020 candidates can smell blood in the water and have already said that they believe Lucy Flores. Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro, both longshot candidates at this point, are on Flores' side. They haven't called on him to resign from the race (he hasn't officially entered it but regardless), but I think they will if/when new accusations come. Either way, they see what is happening and want to take political advantage of it. 

I think that more accusations are coming. With so many people on video being uncomfortable around Biden it seems impossible that nobody else will come forward. Some of those people will likely be credible but you will also likely have your nutjobs that are doing it for attention. If a flood of accusations do come Biden is probably finished. 

But does he deserve it for what he has done? I have no love for Joe Biden and would love to see him crash and burn but I don't know. If the accusations were just about women I don't think he did all that much wrong. Biden's pretty clearly a dirty old man who doesn't respect boundaries and gets way too handsy for his own goods. But I don't think that disqualifies him from the presidency. Pretty much every President has had his sex scandals so I don't think it matter too much. Plus, compared to some of those scandals Biden's behavior is pretty tame. 

But Biden hasn't just done what he has done to women. He's done the same thing to many girls and teenage women as well. And that goes far beyond what he did with adult women. Touching or kissing a woman without her consent is a minor problem. Doing it to kids though? Huge deal. And if one of those kids come forward Biden is done and he would deserve it...

Are people panic buying guns again?

Yesterday evening I went to one of the big box outdoors stores. I was looking to pick up some 9mm and .22 for my next range trip. I won't say which one it is other than the fact that it wasn't Dicks Sporting Goods since I would never shop there. As I was looking around I noticed that there were hardly any AR style rifles there at all.

I thought this is a little unusual as the last time I went there were AR's everywhere but this time there were probably less then 10 and they were the higher end more expensive stuff. They had plenty of long guns and some inexplicable Mosin Nagants and G3 clones but even the handguns seemed like they were picked clean. Though there were still plenty of guns, there weren't as many as I am used to seeing.

Is this just one local store or something or are people panic buying again? I checked the NICS report for the last couple months and though there was a pretty big uptick after the 2018 midterms, where the Democrats took the house, but since the new year it's been steady at around 2 million checks.

I know some states did pass some new laws during the last election, but none of those laws happened in my state. There doesn't seem to be any major reason to panic buy, other than general discontent and worry about new laws down the line.

I guess it could just be in my head. It's been awhile since I went to a sporting good store and I haven't checked the others in the area. The store I went to did just have a major sale so it's possible that they just got cleaned out and spring seems to be a busy time for gun stores in general if the NICS report is anything to go on. It's very possible that it could just be in my head as there wasn't really anyone actually buying guns last night.

I just hope that we aren't entering another panic buying session. I remember the bad old days in 2012 after Sandy Hook. I purchased my first pistol around then and was extremely frustrated that I couldn't find 9mm range ammo (or even hollow points) for it. Indeed, it almost came back to haunt me because the one time I felt I actually needed a firearm to potentially defend myself, all I had was an empty 9mm and my old Lee Enfield. That won't happen again since at the very least I have a few hollow points which I never take to the range but it would be nice if I can keep buying 9mm and .22 for practice and fun.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Federal Judge strikes down California's magazine capacity limit.

My CZ P0-7 with a 16 round magazine that would be banned under California's law. 

A Federal Judge has struck down California's law on "high capacity" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The Hill. U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled that such magazine bans violate the 2nd amendment and prevents citizens from their right to self defense. He said that the law would put a severe burden on law abiding gun owners. The NRA hailed the ruling as a major victory but admitted that the State of California would likely appeal the case to the famously liberal 9th circuit court. 

My Comment:
Obviously, this is a huge victory for gun rights supporters and a major turning point in the gun rights cause. Magazine capacity has always been a target for gun control groups and many states have put into place bans on standard capacity magazines. Having this ruling survive would mean that those laws would be null and void. 

I've always said that magazine bans are stupid. A prepared mass shooter can always find an alternative. Though he used normal magazines, the New Zealand attacker showed how stupid such a ban would be by tapping his magazines together, essentially doubling their capacity with a much quicker reload. The difference between a 15, 20 or 30 round magazine and two 10 rounders is minimal. Taping magazines together isn't even necessary if you simply bring along dozens of magazines. And even if you limit an attacker to a revolver a speedloader and practice means that you won't lose that much time in shooting if you are at all skilled.

But in self defense, magazine size is key. For a relatively unskilled shooter, like myself, capacity trumps pretty much everything else. A self defense situation against a moving target is a hugely stressful and demanding experience and it's very possible to miss multiple times. Plus it's very possible to hit your attacker and not disable him. Having extra shots in a magazine is often the difference between life or death and it's critical to have standard capacity of 15 rounds or more. 

However, it's too soon for gun rights activists to celebrate yet. The ruling will almost certainly be appealed and given that it is going to the 9th circuit court, it may yet be overturned. Thanks to President Trump, the 9th isn't as completely loony as it once was but it still has a well deserved reputation of ruling against conservative causes. I would not be surprised if this ruling gets overturned by them. 

It would then go to the Supreme Court of the United States and that's where things really get interesting. The Court has been giving out mixed signals on gun rights. In theory, they have five pro-gun justices now and have taken up gun rights cases for the first time in a very long time with an expectation that they will overturn New York's gun transport law. On the other they denied hearing to an emergency ruling on President Trump's bump stock ban. 

It's unclear which court would show up if this case were to reach them. I'd like to think that they would affirm the lower court's ruling and overturn the 9th, but that's no sure thing. It's possible that they could deny a hearing on the issue or, even worse, agree with the 9th. That would be a nightmare scenario, but I don't see it being very likely. 

Still, it's no question that this ruling is a huge victory for gun rights supporters. If the ruling survives we would no longer have to worry about having our guns taken away from us based on magazine size. For me personally, it's a relief knowing that I won't become a felon just because I would keep the magazines for my pistol that it was designed to accept. It seems that the judicial tide against gun control is turning and we can all be thankful for that. 

Joe Biden gets #metoo'ed after a former Nevada lawmaker said he kissed her without consent.

Lucy Flores and Joe Biden. Politico/Getty.

Front-runner presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden has been accused by a former Nevada lawmaker of kissing her without consent. Politico. Lucy Flores, who had ran as a Democrat in the Nevada Lieutenant Governor's race, said that while she was at a campaign rally Biden came up behind her, sniffed her hair and then kissed the back of her head. Biden has always had a reputation as someone who doesn't respect personal boundaries. However, Biden denied the accusations. It is unclear if it will effect his run in 2020, which he hasn't officially announced yet. 

My Comment:
I've been saying for years now that if Joe Biden were to run for president, in the current political environment, he would face this issue.There are so many clips and videos of Biden touching women and girls in a way that clearly made them look uncomfortable that sooner or later someone would come forward and complain about it. I should have put money on it because I would be rich right now, but I don't know if anyone would have taken the bet. Biden has been known for years as a creepy person. 

As for this case in particular, it's fairly minor. Biden was clearly acting as a creep as I can barely picture a situation where sniffing someone's hair isn't creepy and you probably shouldn't kiss someone without their permission. That being said, it's fairly minor in the big scheme of things. Biden isn't accused or raping or even groping someone, just being a dirty old man. 

But it is a symptom of a bigger problem for Joe Biden. He's done this kind of creepy thing with kids as well. There's dozens of clips of him making kids uncomfortable while he was touching them. Generally speaking, it appears that Biden does the same thing with kids that he does with adult women. 

And I don't doubt Lucy Flores' story at all. Indeed, Biden did the same thing to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's wife, Stephanie, on video in front of the press. The only difference is that Biden didn't smell her hair, but he clearly kisses her from behind. It caused a minor scandal for Biden even back then, so it's not like these accusations are new or anything. 


So my conclusion was always this. Joe Biden is, at the very least, a creepy handsy guy that doesn't really get personal boundaries. He makes a lot of people pretty uncomfortable and those people include women and young girls. Anything beyond that is pure speculation, but the question for the Democrats is if that is enough to get rid of Joe Biden?

After all, the standards of behavior are changing rapidly on the left. The #MeToo movement has gone after people that did less then Joe Biden. Al Franken lost his senate seat because he pretended to grab a sleeping woman's chest and was accused of kissing her without permission, and Biden has done more then that. Franken was a popular senator in a critical state but he still lost his job. 

I can see it going one of two ways. First is that this all gets swept under the rug. I am guessing that most people, including myself, will say that Biden's behavior is clearly creepy but not so over the top that he should be denied a run for the presidency. As far as I can tell he hasn't committed anything that would result in a conviction for sexual assault, even if you could technically charge someone for kissing someone without permission. He's a creep but as far as we know he isn't a groper or rapist. 

On the other hand the #MeToo movement seems to be all about punishing men who are on the margins of normal behavior. Aziz Ansari and Louis C.K. didn't do anything non-consensual but they had their careers attacked as well. Biden's worse then either of them because it's clear that he touches people without their consent, so my guess is the #MeToo people aren't going to give him a pass. 

I do wonder about the timing of this. Very little in politics happen without a cause and I doubt that Lucy Flores just came out of nowhere for this. I am guessing she talked to one of the factions of the Democratic Party who want Biden gone so they can get their own candidate in as nominee. Biden is popular among the Democratic base but the woke identity politics wing and the economic wing both hate him and want him gone. Given that this story broke in the pre-primary announcement phase and not during a general election you can be sure that the origin of this story isn't from the GOP. 

Time will tell how this plays out. I think that if this is the only accusation, Biden should be safe. But the sheer number of women and girls we have on video who look very uncomfortable around Biden means that I doubt this is the last we will hear about this. It may very well take down Biden and his campaign before it is even launched officially... 



Thursday, March 28, 2019

Major highway in West Virginia shut down after man threatens to attack President Trump and blow up the Pentagon.

Highway I-68. WDTV.

A major highway in West Virginia was shut down after a traffic stop due to the driver claiming to have explosives and threatening President Trump. WDTV. State Troopers arrested a 42 year old Missouri man named Eric Charron after he had been driving 130 mph on I-68. When questioned, Charron claimed that he had explosives in his vehicle. No bombs were found but a handgun, ammunition and black powder were found. 

More information has been revealed about Eric Charron. KCTV. He claimed that he had an invitation to the White House and wanted to give his gun and the explosives to President Trump. He has been charged with reckless driving and illegal possession of a gun. 

My Comment:
Just a quick post about this incident. It's fairly clear that Charron was in the middle of a psychotic break, probably brought on by his drug use. Though his plan was clearly crazy, it's very possible he could have posed a threat. There was pretty much no chance of him getting anywhere near the Pentagon or President Trump, but he could have caused a major incident. He was well armed enough and could have caused some damage. 

I don't think this incident was politically motivated. Charron strikes me as someone who was mentally ill enough that he would have done what he did regardless of who was president. I doubt he was influenced by recent news like the Mueller report and the hysterical coverage of President Trump. If Charron's psychotic break had happened a few years ago it might have been President Obama instead he was fixed on. 

But I will say that it is disappointing that national news is completely ignoring this story. Local coverage has been fine but the national news media is completely out to lunch. They are too busy dealing with the fallout of the Mueller fiasco to really react to anything right now. 

However, I think if the same man had targeted Barack Obama or any other high profile Democrat he would be front page news across the country. More than anything else the press wants to make sure that nobody ever feels any sympathy for Trump so they are downplaying the story. It is a fairly minor incident but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. 

ISIS terror cell broken up in Europe. Ringleader launched two unsuccessful train attacks.

European trains like the ones targeted in the attack. AP.

An ISIS terror cell has been broken up in Europe with three arrests. Fox News/AP. The ringleader is a 42 year old Iraqi man who had unsuccessfully tried to attack two German trains last year. The ringleader had placed a metal cable between electrification masts and succeeded in damaging the driver's cab. He also had attempted to derail a train in the other attack but failed. Two other people were arrested for joining the ringleaders cell. Police found strong connections to ISIS with evidence including an ISIS flag and various documents supporting the group. 

My Comment:
Sabotage is something new for ISIS. Usually they go for the high profile shootings or bombings and they have had some success with car ramming attacks as well. Those attacks have left a major trail of devastation across Europe. 

The problem with those kinds of attacks is that they tend to cost money and risk detection. Obtaining weapons, explosives or even vehicles is expensive and can easily be detected by police or intelligence agencies. This is a major reason why many of these plots, especially the more complex ones, fail and fail miserably. 

Sabotage is much easier. Any idiot can throw a metal cable across a train track or try and bend a rail. It doesn't take much effort and it is much cheaper than any of the other options. And if you pull it off there is a much easier chance of you escaping and doing it again. 

Thankfully, it's apparently more difficult to derail or damage a train then it first appears. Both of these attacks failed and the news report is understandably sparse on details. Nobody wants the terrorists to realize that they can do these kinds of attacks. 

That isn't to say that this wasn't a serious threat. Derailing a train could certainly damage the vehicle and could even kill people. Crowded European trains are even worse as they would have many possible victims. It's not the worst target I have seen for a terror attack and it could have killed quite a few people. 

It's good that this cell was broken up. Even if the attackers have failed at doing much of anything it was still a serious threat. It's unclear how involved the other two members of the cell were but they could have pulled off their own attacks or tried to put together a more serious attack. 

Finally, it's unclear if these men had any connection to ISIS other than being supporters. With ISIS losing all of their territory and being broke, they can't really support terror attacks. These attackers seemed broke to me so I doubt they were getting any help from ISIS. If so, they probably would have chosen a more typical style of attack than their sabotage scheme. 

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

India's anti-satellite test may have caused a debris field.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. Reuters.

The United States is concerned about an anti-satellite missile test that India conducted as it may have caused a major debris field. Reuters. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan warned other countries to avoid anti-satellite missile tests. He said that space belongs to all of us and we should not make a mess of it. Anti-satellite tests cause major debris fields which can destroy other satellites and even potentially spacecraft. NASA officials also said that if we "wreck space we won't get it back". India downplayed the concerns by saying that the test took place in low orbit and that most of the debris should return to Earth's atmosphere and burn up there. India is the 4th country to obtain anti-satellite weapons after the United States, Russia, and China. 

My Comment:
Space warfare is probably one of the major long term threats to the survival of the human species. Indeed, it might be the so called "great filter" that explains the Fermi Paradox. The reason why we haven't seen any evidence of other species is because they are all trapped on their planets due to blown up satellites and other orbital debris. 

A major war in space could lead to a cascade effect where one military satellite being destroyed could cause a debris field that could damage and destroy our other satellites and space stations. This could essentially destroy entire industries that are reliant on satellites and it's not clear if they could ever recover. 

And if it was really bad we couldn't even enter space anymore. Any ship or rocket that we send up their could be perforated by thousands of high speed fragments that would likely destroy them. And that means we could no longer explore the solar system or develop any technology that needs to operate in space. 

In time the debris field may fade naturally or humans could develop a defense against it. Some kind of energy shielding might be a solution but it could take generations to develop that and it might not even be possible. It could mean that humanity could forever be trapped on Earth until some kind of natural or man made disaster kills us. 

This is, of course, the worst case scenario. But even a temporary disruption to our satellite system could be very dangerous for the rest of the world. So many things are dependent on our satellites and it would greatly damage our military capabilities with our dependence on GPS. And any civilian satellite damaged in an incident would cost millions of dollars to replace. It's a bad situation even if we only have a minor incident.

I think both NASA and our acting Secretary of Defense are correct. Testing anti-satellite missiles is dangerous and there really isn't any reason to do so. The potential consequences are much higher than anything that the Indians could gain from having anti-satellite weapons.  

As for the Indians, they are treating this as a major victory for them. They are right in the fact that they have joined a very exclusive club with anti-satellite weapons. In any serious conflict with Pakistan, they would have a major advantage in that they could shoot down their satellites while theoretically keeping their own. That's a game changer and will likely cause Pakistan to develop their own missiles. 

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Mass outrage as criminal charges against Jussie Smollett have been dropped.

Jussie Smollett arrives at a press conference. AP.

Criminal charges against actor Jussie Smollett, who was charged with lying to police and faking a hate crime, have been dropped and the court case sealed. Yahoo News. Smollett's only punishment was to forfeit his $10,000 bond. Smollett also did 16 hours of community service as well. The descion has proven to be extremely unpopular even among other Chicago officials. Mayor Rahm Emanuel said it was a "whitewash of justice" and asked "where is the accountability in the system?" Chicago police were similarly outraged. For his part, Smollett claimed he had been the victim all along. 

My Comment:
This is a massive miscarriage of justice. The 16 felonies that Smollett was charged with had a maximum sentence of 3 years each, which means that Smollett would have faced 48 years in prison, essentially a life sentence, assuming he wasn't released early. What is he getting now? Not even a slap on the wrist. 16 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine? How is that justice?

Remember, Smollett did several horrible things. First of all he sent himself a package that contained a white powder and forced a police response to something that was obviously false. When that didn't get the attention he thought it deserved, he hired two Nigerian men to rough him up and then falsely claimed that two white Trump supporters did it to him. 

It's very important to note that if there had been a pair of white males out that late at night in Chicago (during a massive cold snap), it's very likely that they could have been arrested and charged. Even if the truth did come out about Smollett and his race hoax, their lives would have been totally ruined. They would have done nothing to deserve such treatment but they would have been branded as racists, probably lost their jobs and could have even gone to prison. And there was also a decent chance that this event could have caused riots or even retaliatory attacks. People could have been killed because of what Smollett did. 

The whole thing seems massively corrupt. It's clear that if a normal person had done what Smollett had done they would have had the book thrown at him. It's unclear what factor got Smollett off here. It could have been his race, his sexual orientation, his politics or his fame, but it was likely the combination of all four. Apparently a racist, gay, black man who's mildly famous is above the law in Chicago. 

I think there needs to be an investigation into the prosecutors that dropped the charges against Smollett. It seems obvious that guilt wasn't a question here. It's not like they thought they would lose the case, and even if that was a possibility they still could have gotten a plea bargain that would have at least resulted in prison time. My guess is either it was motivated by politics or that someone got let off. 

I did think that Smollett may have been slightly overcharged as a prosecution tactic. My thoughts when the charges came down was that Smollett would probably only have to serve a couple of years in prison, or maybe even less than a year in jail. That wouldn't have been perfect justice given the gravity of the crime he committed, but it would have been something. Some justice is better than no justice at all.

But to have him get away free and clear with no record? It's disgusting. The man tried to frame two innocent people and thankfully that didn't work. But he also tried to paint half the country as racist, homophobic and violent. He also could have incited violence from people who's world view is already warped enough to believe that racial attacks like this are common. He did a very bad thing and to have him get away with it is beyond belief. 

If there is any hope of actual justice in this case it has to come from the federal government. Mailing yourself a white powder is a serious federal crime. The federal government could also charge Smollett with a hate crime, and it's pretty clear he was motivated by hate. However, I have no idea what the status of such an investigation could be and it's not clear at all if Smollett will be charged. 

This has to be one of the most shameful things I have seen a prosecutor do and I have been following crime and criminals since High School. It's so beyond the standards of appropriate behavior that I hope that there are some severe consequences to the people responsible for it. Because there can't be a country when people can just fake a hate crime like this and get zero punishment... 

Monday, March 25, 2019

Attorney Michael Avenatti charged with multiple financial crimes including a scheme to blackmail Nike.

Michael Avenatti. ABC News.

Attorney Michael Avenatti has been charged with multiple financial crimes including a scheme to blackmail Nike as well as bank and wire fraud. ABC News. Avenatti came to prominence by representing Stormy Daniels, a former porn star who signed a non-disclosure agreement with President Trump. Avenatti used the notability he gained from that case to consider a run for President as a Democrat. However, Federal prosecutors have charged and arrested Avenatti for attempting to extort $20 million from Nike. Avenatti said he would knock $10 billion dollars off of Nike's market cap by releasing damaging information about the company if his demands weren't met. Supposedly, the information concerned a major high school and college basketball scandal. Nike is cooperating with federal authorities on that case. Avenatti was also charged for defrauding a bank and using his clients money to pay for personal expenses. 

My Comment:
What an absolute idiot Avenatti is. I can't think of a worse idea than trying to blackmail a huge company like Nike and he is lucky that he is only getting arrested for this. These huge companies don't mess around and it's entirely possible that the consequences for this action could have been much worse. 

Furthermore, Nike doesn't really care that much about image. I mean, they threw away me as a customer when they signed Colin Kaepernick, and it didn't seem to hurt their long term bottom line. The people that still buy Nike products aren't going to give up the brand just because of some stupid basketball scandal. 

And that's especially true now. Whatever Nike did or didn't do with the basketball scandal, the public is going to be on their side now. People hate blackmailers and that's what Avenatti did to Nike. Whatever they did it's probably a lot less disgusting than blackmail. And credit where credit is due, they did the right thing when they went to the feds. Paying off blackmailers is a sucker's game and is usually worse for you than just letting the information come out. 

Of course it's not that surprising that Avenatti tried to blackmail someone. Indeed, that's pretty much what the whole Stormy Daniels fiasco was all about. She wanted to go public so she could gain financially even though she signed a non-disclosure agreement. She wanted to gain more money, either from President Trump or from the news media and Avenatti was there to help her. 

Avenatti was a pretty terrible attorney for Daniels as it's very possible that she was one of the clients that had her money stolen. I don't know that for sure, and the charges in the LA case aren't related to Daniels, but I do know that Avenatti doesn't represent her anymore and that he filed a defamation case against President Trump without her permission. 

It's been a major fall from grace for Avenatti. He had been considered a long shot candidate for President at one point but that seems like a lifetime ago. That dream ended when he was involved in a domestic violence scandal that ended with no charges. These charges now is the final nail in Avenatti's political ambitions as he will have to be very lucky to avoid a long prison sentence. 

It's been a nice couple of days for fans of President Trump. In addition to one of President Trump's more annoying enemies getting charged for blackmail, he was also vindicated by the Mueller report. It's been very positive around here and I, for one, am happy about it. 

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Major Islamic terror plot broken up in Germany.

German police officer. BBC/Getty.

A major Islamic terror plot has been broken up in Germany. BBC. 10 people were arrested in raids that involved 200 police officers in the states of Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate. The plot involved multiple gun and vehicle attacks with a goal to kill as many "non believers" as possible. German police claim that the main plotters had already rented a large vehicle and were in contact with weapons dealers as well. $22,500 was also seized as well. It is unclear if the plotters had links to a wider terror organization. 

My Comment:
Looks like a very serious attack broken up in Germany. If all the plotters arrested in those raids, they could have killed dozens if not hundreds of people. A combined attack with both shooters and a truck ramming attack would be a disaster, and that's assuming that they didn't attack in multiple places at once. 

It seems like this attack was almost ready to go. All that the attackers seemed to need was weapons and they already had contact with arms dealers. They had the money to probably buy a few guns, though $22,500 would not go as far as one would think. They probably could have gotten a least a few rifles and ammunition though. 

However, it seems that the complexity of this attack was the undoing. My guess is that they were betrayed to German authorities by someone. It's likely that an undercover officer burned their operation or they were reported by someone who knew about the plot that didn't want to get involved. 

Indeed, the complexity of the plot is a sure reason why it failed. Had they just gone and attacked right away with the truck they rented they would likely have been successful. That attack wouldn't have the impact of the one they were planning but it would have worked before everyone got arrested. And given how large the plot was they might have been able to do it more than once before they were all rounded up and arrested. 

I haven't been able to find out if this plot was supported by a larger terror group. My guess would be no largely because ISIS has been pretty much completely defeated. They don't have the money or the ability to fund large attacks like this. That means that ISIS is an unlikely suspect, unless it's one of the affiliate factions like Boko Haram or ISIS in Egypt. 

Another possible suspect is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). AQAP has been silent for a long time since the Charlie Hebdo attacks and they have been as unsuccessful on the battlefield as ISIS has been, but they are still in a better position to have provided funds and support for this attack. 

Most likely though, I am guessing that this plot sprung up without the help of a wider terror network. Given the current state of international terrorist organizations, I don't see how anyone else could have funded this. Unless there is an unknown terror group out there, I don't see who else could be responsible. This was likely an organic home grown plot... 

Read Attorney General Barr's letter concerning the Mueller Report.

Attorney General William Barr has released a four page document that summarizes the Robert Mueller Report into Russian Collusion. In short it concludes that though Russia attempted to interfere with the election, there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. It also concludes that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for trying to interfere with the Mueller investigation.

Other than the summary above, I am going to post the report in full so people can make up their own minds. It's not excessively long or anything and can be read in just a few minutes. Read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. If this investigation proves anything it is that people should think for themselves and not just believe what others say.

And, in case the Scribd link stops working or you can access it for some reason, a direct link to the file can be found here


Friday, March 22, 2019

Mueller investigation into President Trump and Russia ends with no new indictments.

President Trump and Robert Mueller. BBC/AFP/Getty.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has ended his investigation into President Trump and Russian interference with the 2016 election with no further indictments or findings of collusion. BBC. The report has been delivered to Attorney General Robert Barr who will decided how much of it gets released to congress and the public. Barr also confirmed that there were no incidences of the Trump administration attempting to stop Robert Mueller from conducting his investigation. President Trump has long said that there was no collusion or interference with the Mueller investigation and is expected to welcome the end of it. 

My Comment:
Well, it seems that this stupid investigation is finally over. 22 months and millions of dollars later and what does Mueller have to show for it? A bunch of people arrested on economic crimes unrelated to Russia, a few process crimes (NEVER TALK TO THE FBI UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES) and a bunch of Russian hackers indicted that will never see trial. Seems like a massive waste of time, money and effort. 

It is also clear that the main thrust of the Democrats hopes with this investigation did not come to pass. No collusion with the Trump campaign and the Russians was ever found. Whatever the Russians did and didn't do in 2016, it wasn't coordinated with the Trump campaign. No proof of collusion was ever found by the special counsel.

Furthermore, the idea that Trump interfered with Mueller's investigation is dead as well. Mueller himself said that it didn't happen and there isn't going to be any charges in that area, even if they were legally possible, which they aren't. President Trump was well within his rights to end this investigation right when it started, but he didn't. My guess is that he knew he would be exonerated in the end. Doing so was the right call in the end as ending the Mueller investigation would have made him look guilty while letting it run its course has helped him in the end. 

There is some question on when, if or how much of the report is going to be released. I am guessing the vast majority of it will be released, simply because President Trump wants it to come out. Some things might be redacted due to classification but other than that it will all come out. And even if the descion was made to not release the report, someone in congress would end up doing it anyways. We should be able to read the report soon. 

It is still possible that damaging information could come out of the Mueller report, but I kind of doubt it. If there was any kind of smoking gun it would have leaked long before now. If there is anything, it will likely be a minor issue that is embarrassing at best and will be overblown in it's importance. 

I do think that there should be a reckoning in the media after this report comes out. The media has been saying for years now that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and administration and Russia and now it has been confirmed that was a total lie. Their own man who they hyped for almost two years, Robert Mueller, has essentially cleared the President. 

Is anyone in the media going to admit they got the story so wrong? Will there be retractions, corrections and apologies? Will people lose their jobs for lying so much about what happened? Probably not. But what should happen is that people should learn to not trust the media. 

As for the Democrats, it's clear that they are screwed. They had been banking on the Mueller investigation to find something, anything, so they could justify impeaching the President. There is basically no way that can happen now and there will likely be little support from non-partisans for further investigations. If they were smart they would just drop everything now and focus on winning in 2020, but I can't see that happening. This is hugely embarrassing to them and they will likely try and spin it so it looks like President Trump is somehow corrupt. 

In the end though, it's pretty clear that Trump was vindicated here. This long national nightmare is over and it looks like President Trump can go back to governing. There are still going to be fights over his policy but it's clear that the rest of his presidency is safe from enemy action. At the very least he is going to serve until the end of his term and he will likely be elected for a second term as well. 

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Range trip!

.22 LR at 7 yards. 

Skipping a normal post tonight because I was kind of busy this afternoon. I went to a gun range with one of my buddies and shot around 100 rounds of 9mm and .22 LR. I used a CZ 75 PO7 and a Winchester .22. My marksmanship is still lacking but it has improved a bit and I was fairly happy with my groupings. I still have a long ways to go before I can call myself proficient. 

This was my first time using an indoor range and it was pretty decent. The only downside was the cost which is quite a bit more than my outdoor ranges. Still, it was nice not having to wait for an all clear from the RSO to change my targets or have to deal with wildlife running onto the range. 

My guns worked fairly well. My .22 was fine and no issues whatsoever. My 9mm did have a failure to eject on the first round. That's only the 2nd time that has happened with my PO7 and I'm not sure what the deal was. I clean my guns and buy quality ammo, but it might be the fact that my magazines don't seem to like it when I load them with a full 16 rounds. Given this was only my 2nd malfunction after hundreds of rounds, I am not too worried about it. 

Finally, I am happy that I live in a state where I can do this. There are a lot of gun ranges around here, both indoor ranges and outdoor ones. All of the ones I  have gone to are fine and a good time. None of the restrictions are too bad and the gun laws here are good. Unlike New Zealand there isn't much of a chance of my guns being made illegal. 

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Are Democrats serious about increasing the size of the Supreme Court?

The seal of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

President Trump has rejected a plan to stack the Supreme Court with as many as 15 justices. Reuters. The President said during a news conference that "The only reason they're doing that is they want to try to catch up, so if they can't catch up through the ballot box by winning an election they want to try doing it in a different way,". President Trump has confirmed two conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, which shifted the balance of the court to a solid 5-4 conservative majority. At least one candidate for the 2020 election has said he would expand the court to 15 justices. Long shot candidate Peter Buttigieg has made that a campaign promise. 

In addition to Buttigieg, more prominent Democrats have also examined the idea. Elizabeth Warren, Robert Francis O'Rourke and Kristen Gillibrand all expressed interest in the idea and Kamala Harris has not ruled out. 1st term congress woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has a lot.

My Comment:
Packing the Supreme Court is not a mainstream idea yet. I think even most Democrats would believe that this is beyond the pale and would essentially be an act of war. Doing so would be crossing a major red line and could lead to severe consequences. It would essentially be breaking the union that binds the country. You can't just change the rules that dramatically just because you are angry that you lost an election. 

However, the Overton Window appears to be shifting. The idea, which has been unthinkable for a long time now, is starting to rise up in acceptability, at least for extremists on the left. Both the economic leftists and the identity politics people seem to approve of the idea. 

The idea isn't exactly new. FDR famously attempted to do the same thing during his term. He was widely criticized for the act which was even denounced by his supporters as a naked power grab. This scheme is one of the reasons I am not that big of a fan of FDR. The plan failed as congress wanted nothing to do with it. 

Why bring it up now? Because the Democrats are still angry about Merrick Garland. Though Garland was described as a moderate by the media, he was so far to the left that there was no way that the Republicans would ever vote for him. They did what they were allowed to do and didn't bring Garland up for a vote. 

For some reason the Democrats found this unforgivable and have been seeking revenge ever since. We saw this with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation where they launched totally bogus attacks against him and accused him of being a rapist. After that, a court packing scheme seems almost quaint. 

All that being said, I don't think that this is a serious proposal. The only ones saying for sure that they would stack the court are Peter Buttigieg, who doesn't have a chance, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who isn't running and is kind of an idiot. My guess is people are just saying it in order to stand out in the primaries and they will pivot back the sanity after a candidate is chosen. 

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Joe Biden tells supporters that he's planning to run for president in 2020.

Joe Biden. The Hill/Getty.

Joe Biden has told his supporters that he is planning to run for president in 2020. The Hill. Biden was worried that he would not be able to raise as much money as Robert Francis O'Rourke or Bernie Sanders, who $6.1 million and $5.9 million respectively on their first day. Biden said that he needed to raise more than the other candidates so he would be taken seriously as a candidate. Biden is almost certain to enter the race but will not form an exploratory committee until after the Easter holiday. If Biden will run it will be his third attempt at a Presidential run. Biden would also represent the establishment faction of the Democratic Party. 

My Comment:
I don't think there is a doubt in anyone's mind that Biden is going to run. It's been rumored since the 2016 election, so this is no surprise at all. What is surprising is how coy he is being about it. Everyone knows he is going to do so and he has essentially admitted it a couple of times now. But he still hasn't announced that he is running. It makes me think that he isn't that confident that he can win. 

Biden seems to be the candidate most likely to have the support of the Democratic Party. He's pretty good at toeing the party line and isn't too far to the left on social or economic issues. I could see the party playing the same games that they did with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary season. 

Why would they do that? Biden is closer to the center and isn't as likely to scare away blue collar whites as many of the other candidates. He's also got relatively good name recognition as a former Vice President and isn't seen as corrupt. They also think that he can play the straight man to President Trump and could be seen as more reasonable. 

Of course Biden has a long way to go to win in the primaries. His main problem is that he only represents one block of the three roughly three block coalition that makes up the Democratic Party. Biden is part of the establishment, which is a large block but one that is currently losing power to the other block. The economic leftists, like Bernie Sanders is another block and then there are what I call the "woke" leftists. Those are the ones who are obsessed with identity politics and are represented by people like Kamala Harris and Corey Booker. 

Biden's problem is that he doesn't appeal to the other groups. The economic leftists will likely be united around Bernie Sanders and will think that Biden won't go anywhere near far enough on economic issues. The woke group are racist and will hate Biden for the fact that he is straight, white and male. Neither group will accept Biden as their first choice and it's only hatred of Donald Trump that might motivate them to vote for him in the general election. 

Assuming that Biden somehow survives the primary season intact, he also has some major character issues. There are dozens of video clips of Biden making women and girls very uncomfortable, to the point where he's groping them. Even Hillary Clinton had to share an extremely uncomfortable and long hug with Biden and it was clear she wasn't happy about it. But that isn't what is going to be viral it is going to be the dozens of times where Biden touched little girls and young women. 

How seriously this scandal is going to be taken is yet to be seen. And politicians can certainly survive sex scandals. But remember, this is the #metoo era where people are supposed to take sexual assault seriously. Democrats have sometimes held to their beliefs on the issues and other times have acted like complete hypocrites so it could go either way. I don't trust the media to call Biden out on this issue though. 

And of course the fact of the matter is that President Trump is going to be extremely hard to beat. Though Biden probably has a better chance than most he still has to face the fact that incumbents are always hard to beat. When that incumbent has very high approval ratings in his party and is presiding over a strong economy it gets even worse. President Trump is also a masterful debater and would be a strong match against Biden, who is a total jackass at debates. Plus there is the looming specter of Howard Schultz who might run as an independent and would likely split the Democratic Party... 

All that being said, it's important to not underestimate Biden. He's managed to survive in Washington for decades and has a lot of political experience. He's not a lock to be the candidate but he has a decent chance of winning. Right now he's the odds on favorite to be the 2020 candidate for the Democratic Party, even if his chances of winning it all are pretty remote. 

Monday, March 18, 2019

Congressman Devin Nunes is suing Twitter for shadow-banning him and allowing him to be slandered.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R) California. Official photo. 

Congressman Devin Nunes is suing Twitter and some Twitter users for shadow-banning him and slander. Fox News. Nunes is seeking $250 million in damages as well as $350,000 in punitive damages. Nunes claims that Twitter has shadow banned him and many other conservatives and that doing so was essentially interfering with the 2018 elections. Nunes is also suing several accounts that regularly slandered him and Twitter for not removing the accounts in question. Federal law usually protects online outlets from lawsuits like this under the belief that companies should not be responsible for user comments, but Nunes argues that since Twitter takes such a role in promoting some content and banning and removing other content that it is essentially a publisher. 

My Comment:
Good news from California for once. I completely agree that Twitter is biased against conservatives. I know that my account got locked for basically no reason during the President's State of the Union this year. They said I posted "inauthentic content" though I was doing nothing but commenting on the President's speech. I had to sign my life away and give Twitter my phone number just to get my account back. I've also been shadow-banned before though apparently now my account is back to being in good standing. 

I also think that it's very clear that Twitter plays favorites. People are allowed to say absolutely horrible things to people like Devin Nunes or President Trump and nothing happens to them. Indeed, if you follow the President and read the comments underneath his posts it will likely be the same few accounts that somehow end up near the top every time even though his supporters often do not. 

Conservatives also can't criticize liberals on the platform either. Saying something as simple as "learn to code" to a journalist, which is what they always said to people who lost their jobs to globalism, is enough to get your account banned. If you are a somebody, like a journalist or politician, you can get your account back but if you are a nobody like me? You are done. 

It's very clear that there is a problem at Twitter, but does this lawsuit have a chance to win? It will be an uphill battle. Websites have immunity to defamation suits under the Communications Decency Act. In short, they can't be sued if someone posts something defamatory on them as long as they didn't publish the posts directly. 

Nunes' argument will be that since Twitter plays such an active role in curating content that they are now a publisher and not anything else. It's a good argument but I'm not sure if it will work or not. Better legal minds than me will have to figure that one out. 

Nunes will face a much tougher time with the individual accounts he listed. Though the private person who defamed Nunes could be in serious trouble, the owners of the parody accounts should be ok (assuming they are different people). Parody has long been allowed by the 1st amendment and you can say defamatory things about people as long as it's clear you are making a joke. Without being able to see these accounts I can't tell for sure that they were just joking but I am guessing that will be the argument. And it's an argument that will likely hold unless they bring it all the way to the Supreme Court and they reverse Hustler Magazine v Falwell.

Either way though, even if the lawsuit fails it is putting the social media companies on notice. They have been playing fast and loose with the rules and showing some pretty obvious favoritism and collusion with leftists. Things need to change and here's hoping that this lawsuit spurs some. 

3 killed in terror attack in Utrecht, Netherlands.

Anti-terror police exit a tram. BBC/EPA.

Three people have been killed and five more were injured in an attack on a tram in Utrecth, The Netherlands. BBC. A 37 year old man of Turkish descent was arrested hours after the attack. The suspect opened fire on the tram and then fled the scene of the crime. A nationwide manhunt began and the attacker, Gokmen Tanis, was captured shortly after. The motives for the attack have not been revealed but BBC is reporting that Tanis had fought with insurgents in Chechnya and had been arrested for working with ISIS. 

My Comment:
I was following this story in the morning but was unable to follow up on it until now. It's remarkable how quickly the story went from headline news to irrelevant as soon as it was discovered that the attacker was a Turkish man. I think the media were desperately hoping that this would be another right wing attack like the one in New Zealand. No such luck for them. 

It's somewhat unclear what motivated this guy to do this. The BBC is reporting that Tanis had connections to ISIS but their source seems a little off. I mean, they did quote someone on the record, but he's just a local businessman and I'm not sure where he would have gotten his information. If it's true than The Netherlands made a huge mistake letting him back in the country and letting him go. As far as I am concerned anyone who fights for ISIS should be forever barred from coming back to their home countries as a free person and if they aren't a natural born citizens they should be deported immediately. 

They also said in the BBC article that Tanis may have been motivated by family issues. That makes even less sense because if you are mad enough at your family to kill, you kill them and not three innocent people. It's possible that the government is just being cagey at this point and don't want to admit he was a terrorist but I find any explanation for this as anything other than a terror attack suspect. 

I do wonder where this attacker got his firearm. It's unclear what kind of gun he used but my guess is that it was a handgun with limited ammo/magazines. That would explain why he fled after shooting so few people. The Netherlands has pretty strict gun laws like most of Europe and there isn't a right to bear arms there. It would be insane to me if someone like Tanis, who was apparently arrested for terrorism, would be able to buy a legal gun. It's much more likely that Tanis bought a gun off of the thriving European black market. 

The use of that gun makes me wonder if Tanis had any help. Though guns aren't that hard to find in Europe they usually require a decent chunk of money and criminal connections to buy. Tanis may have had those connections already but it's circumstantial evidence that he had help. 

Without a full accounting of why he did what he did, I won't speculate too much on why Tanis shot up this tram. I know others are trying to blame this on the New Zealand attack but I would remind them that there were dozens of terror attacks in Europe long before the New Zealand attack occurred. Indeed, that was a major reason why the attacker in that case did what he did. In short, radical Muslims don't really need a specific reason or trigger to launch an attack. That isn't to say that it's been ruled out that Tanis was responding to the New Zealand attack, but it is to say that it isn't necessary for someone to be inspired by that attack. 

Europe has been mostly quiet lately in terms of terror attacks. This is the worst one in very recent memory and I think there is a major reason for that. ISIS has been largely defeated on the battlefield and can no longer send attackers and fund terror strikes anymore. Their propaganda arm has also been eviscerated and they are no longer putting out high quality propaganda. They can't launch their own attacks anymore and are much less able to inspire "lone wolf" attacks in their name. I am guessing that this attack is just a minor exception and not a reversal of the trend. 

Sunday, March 17, 2019

US diplomacy helped stop missile strikes between India and Pakistan.

An Indian police officer fires tear gas at protesters in 2018. Reuters.

US diplomacy helped stop missile strikes between India and Pakistan during the military skirmish between the two countries. Reuters. At one point India had threatened to launch six missiles at Pakistan and Pakistan said they would respond with three times that many if attacked. Though the exchange didn't happen and there was no suggestion that the missiles would be nuclear, it still was not received well by the diplomatic community. The crisis was caused by a major terror attack in India and their response to the attack resulted in at least one aircraft being shot down. High ranking US government officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo both spent hours talking to India and Pakistan during President Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un. They focused on getting India to back down on their threats and getting Pakistan to released the captured pilot of the MIG-21 that got shot down. China and the UAE also helped with the diplomatic pressure. 

My Comment:
A quick note on the sources in the Reuters article. They cite 5 anonymous sources. As always I have to caution that using anonymous sources is a decent sign that an article is fake news. If no one is willing to go on the record there is a decent chance that the event in question 

However, I tend to believe this article. For one, nobody really gains for lying about this. Second, I generally trust the wire services (AP, AFP and Reuters) to actually have journalistic services. They aren't perfect but they have a much stronger relationship with the truth than other journalistic outlets. I still had to point out the problem with the sources but I think it might be legit. 

It sounds like India and Pakistan were a lot closer to a major war than everyone realized. If India had launched a large missile strike and Pakistan had returned fire it would likely spiral out of control. Such a strike would have forever changed the relationship between India and Pakistan and it would have likely resulted in war. 

Things have calmed down considerably since then. there haven't been any new airstrikes or shootdowns and though tensions remain it looks like a real war has been avoided. Things could of course change but it looks like the world can breath a sigh of relief. We have dodged a major bullet that could have massively changed the fortunes of the entire world. 

If the article is true than the Trump administration deserves credit for helping to stop this war. The downsides of a major conflict between India and Pakistan, and the massive refugee crisis it would cause, are obvious, even if the conflict remained conventional. Avoiding such a conflict should have been a major goal and it looks like the President and his staff did take it seriously. Not only did this save millions of lives in India and Pakistan, it probably saved the worlds economy. And things would have even been worse had that conflict gone nuclear.

The timing couldn't have been worse though. The President was mired in the ultimately failed summit with Kim Jong Un. And I wonder if this diplomatic crisis might have been why. Having his Secretary of State and National Security Adviser trying to put out this fire may have been why he wasn't able to close the deal with Kim Jong Un.    

Friday, March 15, 2019

Mass shooting in Christchurch New Zealand targeting Muslims kills 49 people.

A police officer stands guard near one of the Mosques. ABC News/AFP.

A mass shooting in Christchurch New Zealand targeting Muslims ends with 49 people dead and  more than a dozen wounded. ABC News. The gunman, who has not been officially identified, was armed with multiple long guns and wore tactical gear. He also had a camera and live-streamed the attack on the internet. The attacker also released a manifesto claiming a the attack was a reaction to white genocide and Islamic terror attacks. The footage and manifesto have spread wide and far on the internet despite efforts to censor them. The attack took place at two different mosques and additional people have been arrested though it is unclear at this time how they were involved. World leaders have condemned the attack as an obvious and despicable act of terrorism. 

Live updates:

My Comment:
A quick note. I'm not using this guys name for a couple of reasons. First, his name hasn't been released by the government of New Zealand, so I don't want to get anything wrong. Second, his name isn't really that important in the first place. Because of these concerns I won't be calling him by the name that has been widely spread on social and traditional media. 

This attack will likely go down as one of better documented ones as the attacker left a wealth of evidence and motivation behind. Unlike the Las Vegas shooting there will be almost no doubt on how this attack happened and why it occurred. I have reviewed much of the evidence that was left behind. I have now seen the entire 17 minute video of the attack and read as much of the manifesto as I could stomach. I will not post either of them here, more due to fear of having my blog removed for violating the terms of service than moralistic reasons. The video and manifesto are widely available but most people won't want to see them but I think it would be helpful to summarize both. Obviously, the next few paragraphs are going to be fairly graphic and more sensitive people may want to skip them. 

The video shows the attack on the 1st Mosque, the Masjid al Noor. The attacker is initially in his car listening to the "remove Kebab" song (more on that later, but it's a reference to a meme) and then arrives at the mosque. After readying his weapons he fires on the entrance with a shotgun, which he empties and throws away. He then closes in on the rest of the victims in the building and fires on them with some kind of semi-auto rifle (hard to tell but might be some kind of AR?). 

At one point as he is reloading, a man charges at him and comes within inches of tackling or running past the attacker. This man actually managed to knock the attacker off of his feet but unfortunately he managed to shoot the brave man, obviously killing him. It just goes to show that even if you are in an impossible situation, you should always fight as this man came very close to saving multiple lives. Regardless of the politics and religious aspects of this attack, I hope that if I am ever in a situation like this if I display even half the courage the young Muslim man did I can die happy. 

The attacker then reloads and keeps firing until his first rifle runs dry and he runs out of magazines. He returns to his car and gets another rifle, shooting at some pedestrians as well. He then goes back into the mosque and finishes of any survivors that he could find and then exits the building. He shoots and kills one more Muslim woman, who was begging for help, and runs over her body. He then fires through the windows of his car at other pedestrians and eventually the video cuts out. 

As an aside, I do have to point out that magazine bans would have done nothing to stop this attack. The attacker had already taped his magazines together and it would have simply meant he would have had to tape three of them together instead of two. Reloading wasn't the problem for this guy, it was the fact that he was clumsy and stupid. 

Years of watching the aftermath and commission of terror attacks, mostly for this blog, have left me fairly desensitized to this kind of thing. It still has an effect, but it also no longer shocks me to see people die like this. The main difference is the quality of the video and the fact that it spread so rapidly. It's sad to say that in the world we currently live in, I have seen worse things. 

That being said, the attacker clearly took inspiration from ISIS and their high production value propaganda. Indeed, the only major difference was the fact that the person shooting the unarmed Muslim civilians was a  that it was a white guy from Australia instead of ISIS. 

Some analysis of the attack. First of all, though the guy had a plan he actually got very lucky. He mishandled his weapons pretty badly and ended up dropping his spare magazines and having several jams as a result. He was running back and forth looking for the ones he dropped and he almost was stopped because of it. Though people are saying he looked professional, watching the entire video tells me he was actually very nervous and may have been stopped if more people had been willing and/or able to attack him

He was also extremely lucky that the police response time wasn't faster. The only police presence I detected was sirens in the distance after he had already fled. The actual attack probably didn't last more than a few minutes (I could of course count it up, but I have no desire to watch the video again), but it was more than enough time for him to kill dozens of people. Had there been anyone armed there, they might have been able to stop this attack much quicker. Indeed, there have been rumors that one of the people arrested was an innocent Muslim man who returned fire against the attacker. How true that is remains to be seen, but I do hope that it is correct and not fake news. 

As for this guys politics, if the social media accounts are legit, and they almost have to be at this point, he was some kind of hybrid far-right and far-left extremist. We are talking way out there on the fringes. He described himself as an ecofacsit which is a term that makes very little sense to me. His manifesto was all over the place and included some VERY obvious trolling, so it's hard to be sure what is real and what is fake. He's also pretty clearly an explicit and obvious white nationalist and a racist, and not just being slandered as one (he even points that out in his manifesto which is funny in an extremely dark and disturbing way).

He did do some things that were pretty obviously made to make certain people look bad. He started the video by saying people should subscribe to Pewdiepie, a youtuber that is extremely popular and is often (unfairly) called a racist. He also said he was radicalized by Candice Owen, the leader of the Blexit movement in the United States of America. Neither of those people would agree with what the attacker did and it seemed like a very obvious attempt to discredit them. He also said that the video game Spyro 3, a children's platformer game, radicalized him as well, which is obviously a complete and total lie. Indeed, it looks like an obvious attempt to mess with just about everyone. 

Why would he do that? If there was one theme I found in the manifesto besides the white genocide stuff it was the idea of accelerationism. This is a belief common on the fringes that the best way to change things for the better long term is to change them for the worse in the short term. Make things so bad that there is not choice but for people to rise up and fight and overthrow the system in favor of... well whatever the hell ecofacism is. 

Essentially the attacker's goal, as outlined by the manifesto, was to incite left wingers in the United States to crack down further on gun rights and free speech so that the right would end up having to revolt. In his mind that would lead to a civil war that would secure the future for white people. How such a conflict would help white people when it would kill millions of them is beyond me. And why he would think that it would be his obscure ideology that would emerge victorious from that war is also a mystery.

I also want to point out the just complete absurdity of this. An Australian citizen visits Europe and gets pissed off about terror attacks and all the immigration. He then plots an attack on New Zealand, which has a tiny Muslim population, in order to affect the politics of yet another country, the United States, in order to start a war. It's all completely insane. 

But the worst part? It actually makes quite a bit of sense. Already people are spouting off on twitter and attacking the people named in the video and manifesto. Already there are calls for gun control and censorship. And it seems very clear that he did successfully splash a huge amount of gasoline onto a culture war inferno that was already out of control. He's sitting in a jail cell right now knowing for sure that he's at least getting some of what he wants. And that is more Facebook and Twitter drama, more people spouting off hatred and more people being convinced that it's just not possible to live with each other anymore. 

That being said, it also seems pretty clear that the attacker did in fact hate Muslims, despite saying otherwise in the manifesto. He himself claims he was motivated by the massive wave of terror attacks that hit Europe in the past few years as well as the various sex scandals involving Muslims as well. And it's very clear that he wants Muslims in Muslim lands, not in Europe or other white areas of the world. 

This is what I had always feared when it comes to terrorism. I have long predicted that there was going to be blowback from the wave of terrorism that struck Europe and here it is. And I also said that immigration, and opposition to immigration, would be one of the most important things happening in the early 21st century and beyond. Reprisals were inevitable after the horrific and deadly attacks in Paris, Nice, London and Stockholm. The Stockholm attack, specifically the death of Ebba Ã…kerlund, an 11 year old girl, was stated to be the attackers final straw. Given how horrible that little girls death was, and how controversial it became to even mention her, it's not surprising that it would incite something like this. That's not a defense mind you, but once you cross the line into killing children people will want revenge, even if it's against totally innocent people that had nothing to do with it. 

The great fear is now we may be locked into a cycle of revenge. This attack will likely (and totally understandably, these people were worshiping) outrage Muslims and may convince a few that they should be radical as well. In return, they may launch new attacks which will radicalize non-Muslims and soon everyone is killing everyone. That was this attackers goal and it was of course ISIS's goal as well. If people don't find away to break this cycle then the world is going to be heading to some very dark places very soon. I have been saying for years that the culture war has a risk of turning into a real one and there is a real chance that this could be the first shots. I'd love to find a way to pump the breaks on the culture war but I'm at a total loss here and if there is anything I have taken away from this even it is this. We are in some serious trouble if we don't find a way to avert the cycle of revenge... 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this attacker seems to be knee deep into chan culture and memes. Much of the music he played during his attack (itself a surreal thing) was related to 4chan and 8chan memes. These references will likely go over the head of people outside of chan culture but for people with a passing familiarity, it's extremely obvious he's part of that culture. 

A quick perusal of 4chan's /pol/ board shows that they are freaking out about it. It's an absolute circus of trolls, people panicking over their rights, worried that everything will be shut down and furious that the attacker damaged right wing politics and various examples of the very nastiness that the attacker wanted to stir up. It's utter chaos and probably the most attention 4chan has gotten in years. /k/, 4chan's weapons board, is more calm but there are dozens of threads there as well, which makes sense as the "remove kebab" meme came from them first. 

Does it actually mean anything though? I doubt it. I mean the guy also posted on Reddit, Twitter and Facebook and those places aren't going to be attacked for this. Plus he was attacking chan culture as much as any other right wing group when he committed this attack. Indeed, though the victims were mostly (all?) Muslims, it seems who he really hated was everyone on the right that didn't think the way he did. Don't get me wrong, he hated Muslims too, but to him they were nothing more than a means to an end. He likely hated chan culture for the same reason he hated all right wing groups. They aren't actually the right wing killers the left portrays them as. He wished that the actual conservatives had beliefs as vile and dangerous as the warped version that so many on the left think they are. 

Indeed, if there is anything notable about this man is that he was essentially a nihilist. He said he wanted a future for white people but it's probably the biggest lie in his manifesto. He hated them just as much or even more then the immigrants he said they wouldn't fight. Though he said he wanted accelerationism, instead I just think he wanted to watch the world burn. And since he was captured alive, he may live to see his goal... 

This will probably be my final word on this subject and I may even take a day or two off from blogging. I work overtime this weekend but even so, this post and the research I had to do to write it took a lot out of me. It may be good for my mental health to take a break and just do something else for awhile. It's never a good thing when I have to write a post like this and though I do feel writing about it is important, it doesn't mean I can't take some personal time with it...