Mohamed Noor, former police officer that shot an Australian woman was convicted for murder and manslaughter.

Mohamed Noor walks into the courthouse. Reuters. 

Mohamed Noor, a former police officer in Minnesota, has been convicted for 3rd degree murder and manslaughter for the shooting and killing of an Australian woman. Reuters. Justine Ruszczyk Damond had called 911 to report a suspected rape. As she approached the police vehicle Noor fired a shot across his partner, killing Damond. Noor claimed he was acting in self defense because he heard a loud noise. The case drew international attention and was condemned by the government of Australia. Noor faces up to 12 and 1/2 years for the murder charge and 4 years for the manslaughter charge. He was acquitted on the more serious 2nd degree murder charge. This is the first time a police officer has been convicted of murder in Minnesota. 

My Comment:

When I first heard of this case it was clear to me that it was one of the few police shootings that were completely unjustified. Most cases are legally and morally justified, a few are morally justified but not legally and some fail on both counts. This was one of the clear cases where the cop was in the wrong. He had zero reason to do what he did. 

Noor violated not only police procedure but also the most basic rules of gun safety. You never shoot at something without knowing what your target is and what is behind it. Shooting randomly into the dark is not something that is acceptable for anyone, let alone a cop. This incident is a pretty good example why as Noor's actions caused the death of a totally innocent person. 

He also put his partner at risk as well. Reaching over his partner to shoot Damond put him at risk. Not only could he have shot him, he probably damaged his hearing firing in a enclosed car like that. Once again, Noor failed to follow basic gun safety rules. 

The big question in the trial was weather Noor was trying to kill someone when he fired his gun. It is the difference between 2nd degree murder and 3rd degree "depraved heart" murder. I am guessing the jury believed that Noor wasn't trying to kill someone when he shot but that he knew or should have known that firing at a loud noise was likely to end with someone dying. 

Without following the trial closely, I can't be sure if the jury made the right descion. With my understanding of the Minnesota law, it seems like the correct descion. The 2nd degree murder charge seemed hard to prove but I think the case that this was 3rd degree murder was very strong. 

It seems pretty clear that Noor was completely incompetent and had no business being a cop. There has been a lot of noise about Noor being a diversity hire who wasn't qualified to be a cop. He was Minnesota's first Somali cop and he failed miserably. Those things may not be related but it's pretty clear that he shouldn't have been a cop and if his superiors realized that he wasn't going to work out but failed to fire them, then they have a lot of blame here.  

Possible coup attempt ongoing in Venezuela.

A solider throws a tear gas canister in Venezuela. Reuters. 

Venezuela's opposition leader and interim president Juan Guaido has announced the final phase of his plan to oust President Nicholas Maduro and called on the military to join him in what appears to be a coup attempt. Reuters. Guaido made this announcement on Twitter with around 70 soldiers. A Reuters reporter saw the incident and reported that the demonstration was broken up with tear gas. The Maduro government rejected the incident and said they were still firmly in control of the country and that the group had failed at taking over the airbase where the incident occured. The Maduro government ordered troops to stay in their barracks and called for supporters to march at the Presidential Palace in Caracas. Many countries, including the United States recognize Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela 

En el marco de nuestra constitución. Y por el cese definitivo de la usurpación. https://t.co/3RD2bnQhxt

— Juan Guaidó (@jguaido) April 30, 2019

My Comment:
This is a breaking news story so anything I post will likely be out of date very soon. As of this writing I don't know what happened to Juan Guaido and he hasn't posted on Twitter for three hours. Things could rapidly change and I probably won't be able to keep up with them.

That being said, I don't know if this attempt will be successful. The Maduro regime has mostly been propped up by the military and they have little reason to support Guaido. He was able to gather a few members of the military to support him, but the 70 men he had isn't anywhere near enough to counter the rest of the military. If the Reuters report is true and the gathering was broken up by mere tear gas then things probably won't go well for the coup.

I do find it surreal that Guaido was able to do this and not get shot. I mean he was with armed men and was calling for the removal of the Maduro regime. I know that Maduro doesn't want to antagonize the United States, but I don't see how he can let this stand.

What it is going to come down to is if Guaido ends up convincing enough of the military to actually fight. He doesn't need all of them, just enough to actually pose a threat. 70 guys isn't anywhere near enough but if he were to get even a quarter he could start fighting and have a chance of overthrowing the regime. Right now, it doesn't seem like he has enough.

This reminds me of the failed coup in Turkey but even more haphazard than that. In that coup the military had quite a few forces ready and actually engaged in combat. That coup still failed but it looks like it will come closer than this one to succeeding. With only a few soldiers openly supporting Guaido, I don't see how he wins.

However, there are a few wild cards. Guaido has the support of many countries including the United States and major regional power Brazil. They could help him if he manages to get some of the military on his side. If not though, I don't see how they can save him at this point.

Time will tell what happens. Right now this is all speculation, but I am guessing that the coup probably fails unless something major happens. And if it does, I bet that Guaido will be arrested and removed from power. Either way though, Venezuela will remain a basket-case...

Terrorists attack a church in Burkina Faso.

Police in Burkina Faso. BBC/Getty.

Terrorists have attacked a church in Burkina Faso, killing at least six people. BBC. The attackers approached on motorcycles and killed the pastor, his two sons and three more worshipers. It is the first attack on a church in Burkina Faso after Islamist violence broke out in 2016. It's unclear who was responsible for the attack but the country has both ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates as well as local jihadist groups. Attacks have been increasing in Burkina Faso and have included attacks on teachers and kidnapping of priests. 

My Comment:

Yet another terror attack targeting Christians. This one is getting very little attention. I was barely able to find coverage on it. Part of that is due to the fact that only six people died. It was also in Burkina Faso, which isn't well known or strategically important. But still, the murder of a bunch of Christians should be bigger news and at the very least it deserved a short post from me. 

This attack was a fairly simple one. A bunch of terrorists just showed up at a church and killed a bunch of people. That's about as simple as a terror attack can be and is nothing like the coordinated and complex attacks in Sri Lanka. 

It's unclear who is responsible for this attack. Burkina Faso has a long list of suspects though. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda are very active in the country and have been responsible for attacks. They also have local groups like Ansarul Islam. 

I would say that ISIS is the most likely culprit as they have targeted churches very frequently. Al-Qaeda is much more likely plan spectacular attacks and are less likely to target churches. The local groups are probable suspects as well as this attack was fairly basic. 

As both ISIS and al-Qaeda have been defeated on the battlefield it will continue to fall to local affiliates to carry out attacks. These terror groups can pull off local attacks and kill large number of people. They also make it look like both terror groups are more powerful then they actually are. 

Major home grown terror plot broken up. Former soldier plotted to strike a white nationalist rally.

PFC Mark Domingo takes fingerprints in Afghanistan. ABC News/US Army photo.

A US combat veteran has been arrested for a terror plot that involved bombing a white nationalist rally. ABC News. Mark Steven Domingo, a former Army infantryman who served in Afghanistan, was arrested for attempting to obtain a bomb. Domingo had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He planned to strike a white nationalist rally at Long Beach California, though even if he had gotten his bomb, the attack would have failed because no white nationalist actually showed up to the rally. Domingo had other targets in mind and had an AK type rifle, but was arrested without incident. He said he wanted to attack police, churches and Jews in response to attacks against Muslims, including the Christchurch shooting. 

My Comment:

Something tells me that PFC Domingo is kind of an idiot. As a combat veteran, all he needed to do was pick up his rifle and choose a target. That would have likely killed at least a few people and though he might not have been as successful as the Christchurch attacker, he would have certainly caused some major damage before he was stopped. 

Thankfully, Domingo was a moron. He tried to get a bomb, which may have been more devastating but carried with it a huge risk that the guy you are getting your bomb from is an informant or police officer. That's exactly what happened here and because Domingo wanted to go for maximum casualties his attack failed entirely. Only fools try to make their own bomb, but only the demented try to get one from a probable FBI informant. 

Even worse for him, Domingo's target was a total bust. Nobody showed up to the supposed white nationalist rally. (I say supposed because the media has a nasty habit of labeling anyone right of center as white nationalist these days and I haven't been able to see who sponsored this failed rally and look at their politics) The only people Domingo would have blown up would have been counter protesters, who were also small in number. There as a good chance that Domingo's bomb, even if it had been real, wouldn't have killed anyone who he wanted to target. I do have to say that it would be darkly humorous if this guy had wanted to bomb white nationalists and ended up blowing up a bunch of antifa instead, though thankfully nobody got hurt regardless. 

This should have been obvious to anyone who actually pays attention to white nationalism. The ideology is extremely rare and unpopular even among the far right. There are few genuine white nationalists and even fewer who are willing to go out in public and tell everyone about it. If Domingo's goal was to kill 50 white nationalists in one bombing he'd be waiting a long time for a real target. 

That being said, I think Domingo would have shown up at that rally, saw that it was a bust, and moved on to one of his secondary targets. That means a church, police station or synagogue could have been bombed instead and those targets would have a much better chance of actually causing mass casualties. This threat was still real even if the attacker was a moron. 

I do wonder how Domingo became an ISIS supporter. He served in a combat unit in Afghanistan probably fighting against similar people to ISIS. You would think that having radical Islamists trying to kill you all the time would be enough to make sure that you never join them, but apparently not.

It's also unclear if Domingo was a convert to Islam or not. To me he looks like he is Hispanic or Native American and he has a Hispanic last name. Hispanic converts to Islam are rare but not unheard of. If he was a convert though, his radicalism makes sense. Converts to any religion or belief system tend to be more passionate than people born into it. 

The media is playing up the supposed connection to the Christchurch attack. I generally think that connection is overblown. Domingo had been radicalized before that attack and would have likely attacked anyways. The Christchurch attack may have influenced the targets, but I am thinking Domingo already thought that terrorism was justified. 

Video: Iranian drone overflies US warships including an aircraft carrier.

A US warship in the Strait of Hormuz. AFP.

Iran claims to have succeeded in flying a surveillance drone near US warships including an aircraft carrier. AFP. A video published by an Iranian news agency showed the drone overflying several US warships including a carrier. The drone was able to evade US defenses which didn't appear to realize that the drone was nearby. The incident comes during high tensions between the United States and Iran. 

A high definition footage obtained by #IRGC naval forces shows the #US warships being closely monitored in the #PersianGulf waters, south of #Iranhttps://t.co/BEaY2NhbIL pic.twitter.com/k8Pzh8wdGO

— Tasnim News Agency (@Tasnimnews_EN) April 27, 2019

My Comment:

Just a quick post on this one as there isn't too much to discus. It does not reflect well on the US Navy that a drone was able to get this close to the aircraft carrier. If they are able to get that close with a surveillance drone then they probably could do the same with an armed one. 

My guess is that this drone was too small to show up on radar. The video makes it seem like it was fairly large but perhaps the radar operators confused it with something else? You would think they could have shot it down easily. I mean even if it couldn't be detected by radar it should have been visible to Mk1 eyeballs. The only other possibility I can think of is that nobody wanted to cause an international incident over a drone, so they let it take some pictures. 

This doesn't bode well for us if we ever have an actual war with Iran, which I hope we can avoid. If we do it looks like the Iranians may be able to attack our carriers and other ships with drones. And even if they don't, they can use these drones to locate our fleet and attack our ships with more conventional forces.

Finally, I have to say that the drone sounded like a giant insect in the RT version of the video that had the annoying music cut out. That doesn't have much to do with anything but I thought it was funny. 

President Trump withdraws from UN Arms Trade Treaty at NRA conference.

President Trump holds up a signed executive order signaling the withdrawal. NPR/Reuters.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order that will withdraw from the UN Arms Trade treaty while speaking to the NRA. NPR. The treaty governs the trade in weapons and was signed by President Obama in 2013 but has not been ratified. The ATT has been criticized by gun rights groups since its inception in part due to the fact that it would require establishing a database of domestic gun owners. The White House argued that the ATT is pointless for the United States as they country already abides by their own restrictions and pointing out that other major arms exporters, like China and Russia, did not sign the treaty. 

My Comment:

Before I talk about the treaty, a couple of other things happened at the NRA conference. There was a security incident where some moron threw his phone at the president. He wasn't hurt and the attacker was taken out by security but it was still a disturbing incident. 

The speech also comes at a very hard time at the NRA. The organization has come under fire lately from gun supporters for many reasons. The organization has drifted from it's original goal of protecting gun rights and isn't as committed to good gun laws as other gun rights groups. For example, they didn't put up a fight against Trump's ban on bump stocks even though they probably could have convinced him it was a bad idea. The group is also accused of wasting massive amounts of money and is currently suing one of their own business partners for being incompetent. 

That being said, Trump picked a good place to cancel this treaty. The NRA has been one of the biggest opponents of the treaty, largely due to the domestic impact it would have. To comply with the treaty the United States would have to create an arms registry of new firearms. This is an existential threat to gun rights in the United States as it would allow gun confiscation, or at least make it much easier. It would also hugely violate privacy rights for gun owners. 

And Trump is right, it wouldn't do much to stop the illegal arms trade. With two of the biggest arms exporters not on board it wouldn't do much. Russia and China send out millions of weapons to whoever will buy from them. Plus there are so many surplus arm from our more recent wars that arms are pretty much everywhere. Policing new arms will not do much. 

As for Trump on gun rights he's been a mixed bag. Sometimes he does stuff like this which is obviously a huge win for gun rights supporters. He's generally in favor of gun rights and has appointed many pro-gun judges, including two Supreme Court Justices. With Trump there is no realistic chance of any major gun control legislation and he may sign pro-gun laws like concealed carry reciprocity or legalizing suppressors, assuming they ever get signed into law. 

However, there was the bump stock ban. I'm not a huge fan of bump stocks as they are stupid range toys that aren't good for anything else, but I also think they shouldn't have been banned. Or, at the very least, Trump should have leveraged the bump stock ban in exchange for pro-gun laws. Such a compromise would have made up for losing bump stocks but Trump didn't go for it.  

Former Vice President Joe Biden has announced his 2020 bid.

A still from Joe Biden's announcement video. Reuters. 

Former Vice President Joe Biden has officially announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in 2020. Reuters. Biden has been polling in first place or just behind Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders on top of a huge 20 person field. Biden hasn't offered up a policy plan as of yet but he is championing controversial progressive ideas like global warming, gun bans and free public college. However Biden's start has been marred by several issues, the biggest was a #MeToo scandal where he was accused by multiple women of inappropriate touching. Biden is popular among the establishment of the Democratic Party but may find it difficult to gather support from the economic and social justice wings of the party. 

Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe. I only hope you have the intelligence, long in doubt, to wage a successful primary campaign. It will be nasty - you will be dealing with people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas. But if you make it, I will see you at the Starting Gate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 25, 2019

My Comment:
As expected Joe Biden has thrown his hat into the ring. I'm not a fan of the man, but I do like him better than some of the other candidates, which is damning by faint praise. All I can say about him is that he isn't as radical and racist as many of the other people running for the 2020 Democratic race. If he were somehow to become president I think he'd do a horrible job but I think the country would probably survive in some kind of fashion. Along with Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, he's among the "better" choices for the Democrats. 

I'm not sure what Biden's chances are. His biggest advantage is that he's got the support of the establishment. He's the symbol of the more traditional Democratic Party and will likely have the support of their corporate donors. He's likely going to be the one who the party rallies around and props up. And knowing how the party lied, cheated and stole to give Hillary Clinton the candidacy in 2016, that could be a huge asset to Biden.

Biden also has an advantage in the general election by being more of a centrist. Though I would never describe Biden as a "centrist", compared to others in the party he is a lot closer to the center than many of the rest. Compared to someone like Kamala Harris, Eric Swalwell or even Bernie Sanders, he's a lot closer to the mainstream.

However, Biden has some very serious problems when it comes to electability. Most critically, he got hit with a #MeToo scandal just days before he was set to announce his candidacy. Many women came forward and accused him of touching, smelling and kissing without permission. There is also a large number of videos of him doing the same thing to many women and girls.

I personally thought the main allegations against Biden to be a joke. Biden's clearly creepy but nothing he was accused of has risen to the standards of criminal behavior. If he was doing this in a normal work environment he might have been called into HR, but that's about it. It's still a problem though as the Democratic Party has gone all in on the #MeToo bandwagon and even totally consensual behavior, which this was not, is not within their standards. And Biden is going to be watched like a hawk throughout the election season and if he slips up even once he could be screwed.

However, the videos I have seen doing similar things to young children is a bigger problem. Nobody wants to see a man in his 70's trying to touch and kiss small children. If/when one of those children decides to come forward it could be the end of Biden's campaign.

Biden also has a major problem in that he only appeals to the establishment. The other two factions of the Democratic Party, the economic leftists and the social justice "woke" faction, want nothing to do with him. Biden isn't anywhere radical enough for the economic leftists who want more social programs and free stuff. And the woke leftists are too racist to ever vote for an old straight white male.

I don't think Biden can beat President Trump. Trump's got huge lead due to a great economy, how awful Democrats have been lately and the natural advantage of incumbency. With the Mueller report being a dud and the Democrats looking utterly insane trying to impeach him for literally nothing, Biden will have a major uphill battle to beat him. Trump will also have a ton of ammo to use against him in the debates with Biden being a poor debater in general. I don't think he can win, but he probably has a better chance than most of the other Democrats running.

Rapper Bun B uses a gun to shoot a home invader that was threatening his wife and stealing his car.

Rapper Bun B (real name Bernard Freeman). CBS News/Getty.

Bun B, real name Bernard Freeman, a rapper and businessman used a pistol to defend his house after a home invader threatened his wife and stole his car. CBS News. The rapper's wife, Queen Freeman opened the door after someone was knocking because she thought she had a delivery coming. The attacker than forced his way inside and pointed a gun at Freeman. She handed over her keys and possessions and told the man to take the car. Bun B heard the commotion, grabbed his gun and fired his gun as the man was stealing his car. The man was fleeing on foot and Bun B was chasing him and was able to identify him after his mask slipped off. The suspect, Demonte Alif Jackson, was arrested at a local hospital and changed with two counts of robbery with a deadly weapons and one count of burglary. 

My Comment:

I don't know anything about rap or rappers but I thought this was a good story of self defense. This situation would have gone much worse if Bun B hadn't been armed. It's very possible that both he and his wife could have been killed or worse. At the very least the suspect would have likely have gotten away with his crime as he had to seek treatment for his wounds. If he hadn't been shot he would have escaped and could have done this to someone else. 

It was pretty clearly a good shoot. I'm no expert on Texas law but I know they have castle doctrine so he was more than justified in shooting. Even if they didn't have castle doctrine, it would have been a good shooting as the suspect was threatening people with a gun. It's very obviously a case of self defense. 

It also sounds like they got the suspect dead to rights. They should be able to match his wounds to Bun B's gun and Bun B will be able to identify him. He doesn't have any defense for what he did and I'm assuming he will try and cop a plea deal due to overwhelming evidence against him.

I want to say that this incident shows that gun rights are for everyone. It doesn't matter what race you are, it doesn't matter what you do for a living, it doesn't matter who you are. You have a right to defend yourself and use a gun if someone breaks into your house.

It's also a good lesson to home invaders. Just because someone is a celebrity doesn't mean they are defenseless. Though many celebrities are hypocrites about gun rights, any criminal that attacks them do so at their own risk. This is probably especially true for rappers. I can't imagine that in most cases trying to rob a celebrity is going to go well for you... 

Armed men escort illegal aliens while crossing the border.

A screencap of the men. Phil Villarreal/ABC 9 KGUN.

A group of armed men were filmed escorting a family of illegal immigrants before they crossed the border. ABC9 KGUN. The US Customs and Border Enforcement agency posted the video on their Twitter account. The heavily armed men escorted a woman and an 8 year old boy to the border fence before they crossed. The illegal aliens were arrested. The area is commonly used to smuggle immigrants and the border patrol credits new technology for detecting the incident. 

#USBP cameras capture armed men escorting Central American mother and son across the U.S./Mexico border in #Arizona @CBP video available here: https://t.co/xyD26HRlVj pic.twitter.com/dvI3c4ddO6

— CBP Arizona (@CBPArizona) April 23, 2019

My Comment:
Another dangerous incident on the border and a good follow up to yesterdays post about the border. These men were extremely heavily armed. It's hard to tell what guns they had due to the quality of the video but it's clear they were loaded for bear. It looked like they had AK's and body armor as well as quite a bit of gear which likely included other magazines.

It makes sense that the Border officers did not confront these men and simply arrested the illegals after they had entered America. Even if the officers were as well armed as these men they still would have had a ban chance of actually defeating them in a conflict. And yesterday's post about the Mexican Army shows how poorly armed some of these officers and soldiers are.

It also shows how pathetic the border is in some places. This section of the border in Arizona was so poorly defended that a small child could cross it with little help. The wall there is little more than a fence and I think the fence I have at work does a better job at keeping people out.

It's unclear who these men are but if I had to guess they were probably working for the cartels. Coyotes used to be more independent but the cartels have been expanding into other areas for quite some time. Human trafficking is a huge deal for them now and I am guessing that these were cartel members.

I have little doubt that if these were cartel members they could have attacked any border officers, soldiers, or even civilians that were in the area. The cartels are absolutely brutal and rival even ISIS in their depravity. They try to avoid violence in America largely due to fears about bad press and legal and extralegal retaliation but if backed into a corner they could certainly attack.

I think this incident as well as the recent incident where Mexican troops detained Americans means that we should really have much better arms at the border. At a minimum our troops and border protection agents should have rifles. I personally think they should have machine guns and heavier vehicles up to and including APC's. 

Pentagon reviewing military rules after two US soldiers were detained and disarmed by Mexican soldiers on American soil.

A US CBP officer stands near the border. Daily Caller/Reuters.

The Pentagon is reviewing military rules after two US soldiers were detained, questioned and disarmed by Mexican soldiers on American soil. The Daily Caller. The incident happened on April 13th where two soldiers were patrolling in an unmarked CBP vehicle. Though they were on the Mexican side of the border fence in the area, they were still on US soil. They were then approached by an unmarked truck with five or six Mexicans in it. Those Mexicans were heavily armed FX-05 Xiuhcoatl wile the US soldiers only had M9 pistols. When the Americans realized they were being confronted by Mexican soldiers they gave up their weapons. A NORTHCOM spokesman said that soldiers and government officials will be trained so this kind of thing won't happen again. 

My Comment:

A very disturbing incident at the border. It was very lucky that the incident ended peacefully and didn't end with deaths. The situation was extremely dangerous and could have caused a major international incident. 

Given how dangerous Mexico is it was pretty lucky that these were Mexican soldiers and not Cartel soldiers. If that had happened these soldiers could have been killed. The Cartels usually don't mess with US officials and soldiers as they know that it would draw hell onto them, but since these soldiers were in an unmarked vehicle. 

I don't like how these soldiers gave up their weapons. They were on US soil and had every right to keep their weapons on them. It may have been a matter of life and death but even then surrender probably wasn't the best option. It's incredibly embarrassing to see our troops give up their weapons on their own soil. It makes our military looks like a joke. 

I do have to wonder why these soldiers were so poorly armed. Both the Mexican military and the Cartels are heavily armed and it was pretty much guaranteed that these soldiers would be outgunned in any confrontation. And the article made it sound like there was only one M9 between the two of them. I hope that one of the recommendations from the Pentagon is that soldiers have at least an M4 or similar weapon with them for each soldier and for them to work with backup. 

Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris say that convicted felons like the Boston Marathon bomber should be able to vote.

Senator Bernie Sanders. USA Today/AP.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, both running for the Democratic nomination for president, have said that convicted felons, like the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should be able to vote while still in prison. USA Today. The two were asked about it at a CNN town hall event and Sanders was also asked if he supported restored voting rights for convicted sex offenders as well. Sanders said that removing voting rights, even for someone like Tsarnaev, was a "slippery slope" despite felons voting from prisons only being allowed in Vermont and Maine. Sanders acknowledged that the statement would likely be unpopular. Kamala Harris said we should have a "conversation" about the issue and said she opposed lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons. A third candidate, Mayor Peter Buttigieg, said while he did support felons having their voting rights restored after their sentence, he did not support felons voting from prison. 

My Comment:

When I saw this story making the rounds yesterday night on social media, I assumed that it was false or fake news. I figured that both Senators Sanders and Harris had been taken out of context and hadn't been directly asked this question. While Harris was a bit more cagey with the question, I didn't believe that Sanders and Harris would just out and out say that they supported giving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his voting rights back. Amazingly enough it was true. 

There has been a big push from the left to give back felons their voting rights. Though they claim it's all about making sure that everyone has a right to vote (which I don't think is a good thing in the first place), I think it's much more cynical than that. It's mostly a ploy to gain more voters in crucial swing states that can propel them back into the presidency and help make sure they stay there. Certainly, that's where Kamala Harris is coming from, but I do think that Sanders probably does believe that they should vote on moral grounds. He has always been very extreme in is political positions and has defended his ideals that are unpopular.

Obviously there are huge problems with allowing felons to vote from prison. The most obvious one is that you are giving felons the power to decide elections in close states. This means they will inevitably vote for the party that will give them the most perks and privileges. Since prison is supposed to be a punishment, this undermines the whole purpose of imprisoning them in the first place. Why not commit crime if you can just vote to be released? 

Another problem is that people don't want these kinds of people to have a say in society. People like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev aren't anywhere near the mainstream politically and giving him the right to vote is about as responsible as giving him a gun. I'm all for restoring gun rights for certain non-violent felonies but giving someone a gun while they are currently is madness, just like giving them a chance to vote. He's already proven that he can't act in a solemn and responsible manner as he has killed at least 3 people, why give him a say in how this country is run?

This is not going to play well for Harris and Sanders. I get the feeling that they both may have lost the Massachusetts primaries and if they are the candidates chosen, they may even flip the state to the GOP. The Boston Marathon bombing is still fresh and Tsarnaev is still hated there. I'd imagine that if I went to a working class bar in Boston and said that Tsarnaev deserved to vote I'd probably be leaving that bar with a bloody nose at least. 

And it may cause further problems with the feminist wing of the party. Remember, it wasn't just Tsarnaev that was cited as an example but convicted sex offenders as well. Feminists are going to hate this as they want sex offenders punished as much as possible and don't want them voting against them. 

I do have to say that the question itself was suspicious. It was framed in a way that made it sound about as bad as possible, associating it with one of the most despised people in America. While I do appreciate the fact that letting Tsarnaev vote would be an obvious consequence of restoring felon rights while in prison, it seems that someone was out to get Sanders, Harris and Buttgieg. Sanders and Harris fell into the trap while Buttgieg handled it much better, but you have to wonder if this was less of an own-goal and more of a trap...

Mexico's murder rate has risen dramatically in the first three months of 2019

Police and civilians at the scene of a crime. BBC/Reuters.

Mexico's murder rate has risen by 9.6% for the first three months of 2019 compared to the same period in 2018. BBC. 8493 people have been killed in 2019 so far, which contradicts new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (ALMO) who claims that the murder rate hasn't increased under his leadership. 2018 was already the worst year for homicides, most of which were fueled by the drug war between the cartels. ALMO has said he will create a force to secure the country but it's unclear if the plan will work. 

My Comment:

Looks like ALMO's reforms haven't really been working out. The violence isn't going down but it is getting much worse. The homicide rate is a pretty good proxy for the Mexican Drug War as most of the murders are due to the drug trade at least in part. With so many people dying it's pretty rich that ALMO is saying that the war is slowing down. 

It does seem that most of the deaths are due to fighting between the cartels and not between the cartels and the government. ALMO has lessened the pressure on the cartels and hasn't been targeting them as much as the last president. 

Without a common enemy to fight, the cartels are trying very hard to eliminate each other. But the cartels are strong enough that they are mostly killing their low level people and not the leadership which keeps the cartels together. 

Of course the civilians are caught up in the middle of the fighting. Given Mexico's insanely harsh gun laws, they can't get firearms to defend themselves against the cartels. Loosening those gun laws would probably increase the violence as vigilantes and civilians fight against the cartels but it would at least give them a chance to defend themselves. 

I don't think ALMO's plans will work. There are probably two long term solutions for the Mexican Drug War. The first would be a military solution. Wipe out all the cartels with extreme military options. Such a solution would be a human rights nightmare and would make the death rate even higher, but it would work eventually.

The second option is to wipe out all the cartels but one and give them a monopoly. Doing so again would require military action and human rights violations, along with allying with one of the cartels, which would be morally reprehensible. Giving one of the cartels a monopoly would reduce much of the violence. 

As usual, the Mexican Drug war is largely ignored in western media. Even the GOP doesn't play up the fact that there is a huge national security risk south of our border. In my mind the violence in Mexico right now more than justifies the Wall. But at the very least you would think that this massive war that causes so many problems in America would get some media coverage, but outside of the random article like this one it goes mostly ignored. 

Major terror attacks in Sri Lanka targeting churches and other buildings kill and wound dozens.

Sri Lankan soldiers guard a Catholic Church in the wake of the bombings. New York Times/Reuters.

A major terror attack involving bombings in six separate locations have killed and wounded dozens of people. News.com.au. At least 42 people have been killed and 160 wounded with those numbers expected to rise. Three churches and three hotels have been targeted in the attacks. There have been no immediate clams of responsibility. 

Live Updates:

Times of India

Sky News

AP

My Comment:

This is a breaking news story, so much of this information could be out of date quickly. That's why I posted links to the live updating stories. Sky News is already claiming that the death toll in one of these churches alone is more than 50 and that 300 people have been taken to one hospital. If those numbers are true this is one of the worst terror attacks in recent memory. They are also saying that the bombings were likely suicide bombings, though that hasn't been confirmed yet either. 

It is very unclear who is responsible for this attack. I know that Sri Lanka had a long insurgency with the Tamil Tigers but they have been defeated militarily. There may be some holdouts and they have been known to use suicide bombings in the past. 

However, the choice of targets makes me think it's not them. The Tamils are nationalists and have little reason to attack churches and hotels. They are secular and have members from every religion in Sri Lanka and it would make little sense for them to antagonize their Christian members. It's also possible that it was an attack from Hindus or Buddhists, but that seems unlikely to say the least. 

Islamic terrorism is another possibility. Sri Lanka doesn't have that many Muslims, but they are a decent sized minority and both churches and hotels are fairly frequent targets for groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. They also have a long history of suicide bombings and major terror attacks like this one. If I had to put money on it, I'd say this is Islamic terrorism, but it's still too soon to tell. 

A major piece of evidence for it being Islamic terrorism is the date. Today is Easter in the Christian world, which is one of the most important holidays for the religion. Attacking on holidays is another major tactic of Islamic terror groups like ISIS. 

It does seem terror attacks on religious sites have become rather common. In addition to the obvious and extreme attacks against Christians and churches, there have been many attacks Mosques, both by Muslims and non-Muslims. And there have been a few Synagogue attacks as well. It's possible that there is a trend here, but I'm not sure what the baseline is. Still, there are a lot of these attacks happening lately and I wonder if it might be another case of the idea spreading because of news coverage and notoriety.  

I also think that attacks on churches and hotels make sense from a terrorists perspective. They rarely have strong security and are places were large numbers of people gather. Ignoring all the political and religious reasons, choosing them as targets makes a lot of sense. 

I am somewhat worried that this wave of attacks might not be finished and could continue in other countries. This was clearly a very well organized and powerful plot so there is no reason it couldn't be an international one. It's also possible that it could either inspire "lone wolf" attackers or cause other terrorists to move their plots forward sooner. Either way, I will be paying very close attention to the news today even as I myself visit with my family for the Easter holiday.

ISIS claims credit for terror attack in Congo

An Ebola worker in Beni. New York Times/Reuters.

ISIS has taken credit for a terror attack targeting soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. New York Times. Eight soldiers were killed in the attack which was initially blamed on the Allied Democratic Forces, a rebel group that has killed hundreds of people. However, a new affiliate of ISIS, called the Central African Province of the Caliphate, has taken credit for the attack. The attack occurred near the Ugandan border right in the middle of a devastating Ebola outbreak. The response to the Ebola crisis has already been complicated due to the violence between the government and the ADF. 

My Comment:

The last thing the Democratic Republic of Congo needs is an ISIS affiliate causing trouble. They are already facing a rebellion from the Allied Democratic Forces and a major outbreak of Ebola. Plus they are a third world country with many other serious problems. Having ISIS attacking their soldiers is not going to help things. 

There are worries that ISIS could try regrouping after losing their strongholds in Syria and Iraq. Central Africa is disordered enough that they could try getting a foothold there. The problem with that idea is that most of the fighters in Syria and Iraq are either dead, captured or underground, with very few ways to escape to Central Africa. 

Thankfully, this attack was fairly minor, barely a skirmish compared to the battles between the government and the ADF. ISIS isn't a major faction in Congo and even if they grow they won't be the biggest problem that Congo faces right now. It's obviously a bad thing that ISIS has come to the Congo but it's pretty low on the list of problems for the country. 

This attack may further complicate the efforts to stop the Ebola outbreak in the Congo. They have already had massive problems getting people vaccinated and treated. There are the typical dysfunctions that are common in Africa where people don't trust health workers and have their own superstitions. 

But health workers may have to pull out if ISIS starts making further attacks. They have already been attacked by the SDF, which makes contract tracing and isolation much more difficult. Ebola workers already have to deal with the obvious danger of working with the disease. Facing violence from the rebels or, even worse, ISIS, is making an already dangerous situation even worse. 

I do have to say that there is an obvious parallel between ISIS and Ebola. Both of them were huge news stories a few years ago but now they have faded into the background. Both of them are still a major threat that the news media is largely ignoring. And both of them could come back into the news in a major way if the problem in the Congo isn't dealt with... 

Read the Mueller report.

The Mueller report released yesterday and I haven't had a chance to read it. From what I understand it was, and forgive the expression, a nothing burger. The media is saying something totally different so the solution is to read it for yourself. Below is the entire report, read it if you want to.

Mueller Report by on Scribd

Ruger AR 556: First impressions.

My Ruger AR 556.

Tonight I finally took my new Ruger AR-556. I got it a couple of weeks ago but I haven't fired it until now. I had planned on shooting it last week, but a freak spring snowstorm ruined those plans. I finally got around to shooting it tonight at the local indoor range. I had a great time at the range and also shot my .22 rifle, my CZ PO7 and my friend's Glock. We put a ton of rounds down range in a fairly short period of time and had a great time.

As you may know Ruger's AR-556 is their budget entry level AR. It's chambered in .556 and comes with iron sights and one PMAG (Gen2). It's got a 1-8 barrel twist and an adjustable stock. All of those are pretty standard and the price I paid was competitive with the Smith and Wesson M&P Sport (mine was cheaper locally, but your price may vary. I've seen it as high as $700 or as low as $600 for a new one at local stores with better prices online). 

I was firing a mix of .223 and .556, all of it Federal American Eagle. I did have some trouble with loading the first magazine. It jammed up on me but I think that was user error, not a problem with the gun. I don't think I let the charging handle go quick enough and with enough force and that caused the malfunction. I was able to clear it easily and was able to load it after that.I also gave the rifle just a basic cleaning before taking it to the range when it probably needed a full cleaning. I tossed the round and after that it shot fine. I had zero misfeeds after that and no jams. 

It seems fairly accurate. I admit to being a below average shot but it seemed any errors in my grouping were due to that, not because the rifle was inaccurate. I thought I was going to have to adjust my sights but they were dead on right away, so that was nice. I just used my iron sights and considering it was my first time shooting an AR, I think my grouping was ok. I have always been a much better shot with rifles than I am with handguns. I will say that I was shooting consistently low, but that is probably due to my own aim issues and not the gun.

There's always one round that's away from the others... 

Some other more general observations for my first time with an AR, it's so nice having 30 round capacity mags. I'm used to my 16 round CZ mags, so many times it felt like I should have been out but I really had many more shots. I was using Magpul PMAG's and one MFT magazine. They seemed to work fine. I was slightly worried with the MFT magazine as I bought it on a whim but even though it's clearly not as nice as the PMAG's it did the job fine.

Recoil was very manageable. It's obviously more than my .22 which basically doesn't have recoil but it's a lot less then my big .303 and .308 bolt guns. The trigger pull felt fine to me when compared to my other guns, but from what I understand the Ruger trigger isn't the best. I probably won't waste money upgrading the trigger, but with only my other weapons to compare it to, I'm not sure if it's bad or not compared to other AR's. 

If there is one thing I don't like it's the handguard. I had heard that the handguard wasn't the greatest but I confirmed it. It gets pretty hot, which is expected, and it wasn't the most comfortable thing in the world. If I replace anything on the AR-556 it would be the handguard.

Between me and my range buddy we fired around 160 rounds through the gun and had no malfunctions and issues other than the first round. It's too early to have a final verdict on the gun, but so far I liked it and considering I didn't pay too much for it, I'm happy with it. For a first AR, it feels like a decent value and it's pretty fun.

Without having shot the Ruger's competitors, I can't say if I recommend it over the the M&P Sport, the DPMS or any of the other entry level AR's. Given the features the Ruger has and the fact that I had almost zero problems other than the first round, I think I can say that I'm happy with it.  I plan on taking it back to the range a couple more times this spring and over the summer and perhaps sometime this fall I will write a more in depth review. 

FOIA request confirms that zero standard capacity magazines have been turned in to New Jersey state police.

My rifle with a few standard capacity PMAG's.

Just a quick post for something I shared on social media but did not actually write about on my blog. The website Ammoland.com did a freedom of information act request for New Jersey in the wake of their standard capacity magazine ban. According to them there is no record of ANY people in New Jersey handed in any of their magazines at all.

They also claim to have contacted local police departments in New Jersey and none of them claim to have seen any magazines come in either. If true that means that compliance with New Jersey's magazine ban might be at 0%. That would be a huge victory for gun rights if true and considering this is happening in a rock solid blue state it doesn't bode well for gun control.

That being said, I don't know how trustworthy those claims are. It's inarguable that the State Government has admitted to not receiving any magazines but their claims for local police departments are all sources that haven't gone on the record. As always, it's good to be skeptical with anonymous sources.

Plus there is also the possibility that people either sold, destroyed or modified their magazines to comply with the law. That wouldn't leave any record but it could mean that some small number of people did comply with the law.

I sincerely doubt that many if any did so though. People generally ignore these magazine laws and generally just keep their magazines when something like this happens. And with normal capacity magazines being legal in California for a week and hundreds of thousands if not millions of magazines being bought, it seems as though people just don't care about magazine bans. It should be a pretty strong warning to gun controllers that any new laws would likely not be followed.

FOIA-NJSP Gun Magazine Ban ... by on Scribd

Editor's Note.

Just an FYI, with the upcoming holiday I should note that posting might be lower than usual. I have plans for both Saturday and Sunday and might not be able to get a post up either day. I plan on seeing my family for the Easter holiday and it should be a good time. If the weather holds we should be having a Turkey on the grill, which would be awesome.

And tomorrow night I will be going to the gun range to finally try out my AR. I wanted to go last week but a sudden spring snowstorm ruined things. I hope to have a post up afterwards giving a initial review of my gun, but depending on how late it is, I might not get to that post until Friday.

I was going to have a post up today, but I totally lost track of time. There isn't a whole lot I wanted to cover today but I don't have time to cover any of it now! Talk about poor planning on my part, but what can you do. I hope things will return to normal soon and I will do whatever I can to post as much as possible.

My Senator has responded to an e-mail I wrote her concerning the background check bill in congress.

As you may know, Congress passed an expanded background check bill that would essentially be a ban on private sales of firearms. I am, of course, opposed to any ban on private sales as it won't do a thing to stop gun crimes and is an unconstitutional. The bill passed the house but currently languishes in the Senate, unlikely to come up to a vote as the GOP controls the Senate and is generally opposed to gun control bills. That being said, I wasn't willing to risk it being passed without contacting my elected officials.

In response to HR8 and HR-1112, a bill that would force a major delay on background checks, I contacted both of my senators to express my opposition to the bills. I sent an identical e-mail to both Senator Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson. As usual, despite my political disagreements with her, Baldwin (or her staff) has gotten back to me while Johnson has not.

I will post my original e-mail to both senators and then I will post Baldwin's response letter. If Johnson ever gets back to me I will post his letter here on this blog as well. As usual, the only thing I will edit out is my name. My only comment is that though Baldwin tried very hard to act like a 2nd amendment supporter, she does in fact support a ban on private sales of firearms.

My e-mail to Senators Baldwin and Johnson:

"The house has passed a gun control bill, HR-8 which would ban private sales. They are also considering HR-1112, a bill that would force delays on background checks. I oppose both of these bills as they infringe on the 2nd amendment, would do nothing to actually protect people and seem like a 1st step to gun registration and gun confiscation. I ask you to oppose both of these bills if they come up to a vote. Thank you for your time."

Baldwin's response:

Major fire damages famed Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, France

The Notre-Dame Cathedral burns. Reuters. 

One of the most famous and important churches in the world, the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, had been gutted by a massive fire. Reuters. The roof of the cathedral has been destroyed but the famed bell tower and walls have been saved. The fire burned for 8 hours and one fireman was injured in the incident. Emergency responders rushed to rescue as many priceless artifacts as possible. France's President, the embattled Emmanuel Macron, said France would rebuild the cathedral and asked for assistance from the world. So far it is unclear what caused the fire but French officials do not believe it is arson or terrorism at this time. 

Watch the moment spire of #NotreDame cathedral collapses due to firehttps://t.co/3mWYOkKYTx pic.twitter.com/m9sS1EvrwO

— RT (@RT_com) April 16, 2019

My Comment:
What a disaster for France, which is a country that has been through a lot lately. They have had many major terror attacks and their government is very politically unstable. The last thing they needed is to see one of their greatest political, religious and emotional symbols of the country burned to the ground. This is a huge disaster for them.

If there is hope that can come from this it might be that this disaster will help bring the country together. There is a huge split right now between the upper classes and their migrant servant class and the lower and middle class people of France. They have had months of protests from the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Jackets movement and Emmanuel Macron is one of the least popular leaders in Europe. Perhaps this disaster will bring the French together in mourning.

I'm not confident that the Cathedral can be restored to it's former glory. It is an ancient building and many of the skills, techniques and even knowledge of how to build such a structure has been lost to time. There aren't people that know how to fix this building and it will take some of the best minds in the field a lot of time and money to figure out how to fix the Cathedral.

There has been a lot of discussion on social media on what might have caused this. Many people have pointed out that there have been many cases of vandalism, terrorism and other kinds of attacks on Catholic Churches by radical Muslims. Others are blaming the Gilets Jaunes movement, though why they would attack Notre-Dame is beyond me.

Right now there isn't any proof that this was deliberate in any way. There are plenty of people that would want to do this, but so far I haven't seen anything that proves that this was an attack. From what I understand the Cathedral was undergoing renovations and there are dozens of ways for it to start on fire, so there is no reason why it couldn't have been a tragic accident and for now, that's what I think happened. But if evidence is found that this was a deliberate attack, there will be hell to pay.

I've always wanted to visit Europe and while France wouldn't have been my first choice, if I was going there I would have stopped by this Cathedral. It's unfortunate that I probably won't have the chance to see it in it's full glory now.

Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell again pushes gun control...

Eric Swalwell. Politico. 

Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell has said that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. Politico. Swalwell said on CNN's State of the Union that "... the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Just like free speech — you can't shout fire in a theater or lie about the products you are selling. You can't own a bazooka, you can't own a tank, you can't own rocket-propelled grenades." Swalwell again pushed his "assault weapons" confiscation scheme where the government would buy those weapons from gun owners and imprison those who don't go along with it. Swalwell said he would make an exception to gun owners who stored their rifles outside of their homes at a gun range or hunting club. 

My Comment:

I don't have much to say about Eric Swalwell that I haven't already said, but I did want to point out that Swalwell is either lying here or simply doesn't know the law. It actually is totally legal to own a "bazooka", tank or RPG, depending on what state you live in. Some states have additional laws governing such things but federally, you can legally own heavy weapons like this.

For the bazooka and RPG all you would have to do is pass the background check for the FFL, pay a $200 tax on each explosive you want to buy plus the weapon itself. It's ludicrously expensive and there is no great benefit in doing so, but if you want a rocket launcher and can find one for sale you can buy it. And, of course, it's totally legal to buy a deactivated or replica rocket launcher. 

And tanks are even more available. Anyone can buy a tank without any regulation at all (other than at the state level) if they have the main cannon deactivated first. Sure, that's half of the fun of a tank, but it's still true. If that's what you want the only limit is your budget and what is available out there to buy. And if you want one with a functioning cannon, you just have to follow the regulations for destructive devices.

None of this is obscure trivia or anything, people always talk online about how you can get these kinds of things in America. Which makes me wonder if Swalwell is just out and out lying here. It's certainly possible that he believes that California's regulations on destructive devices is a national thing. He is from that state after all and seems like he is dumb enough to believe that his state is actually the norm. But I think he was deliberately lying to CNN's remaining viewers in order to push his gun control agenda.

Finally, on a slightly different subject, I did see that Swalwell has moderated his stance on "assault weapons" a bit. In the past Swalwell said he wanted a full confiscation of these weapons, buying them from gun owners and imprisoning the ones who don't turn them in. However, now he is saying that he will allow ownership of these guns if they are stored at a gun range.

This is, of course, unconstitutional and very plainly defeats the purpose of owning an AR or other rifle. You can't defend yourself and your family if your rifle is in a locker at the range. And there is a very good chance that the "assault weapon" is going to be the best option for anyone in a self defense situation. For me personally, the only reason there is any doubt in my mind at all over which gun I would pick in a home defense situation is that I literally bought my AR last weekend and haven't taken it to the range yet. Otherwise there is no question that it would be the best choice out of all my guns. Only thing that comes close is my handgun, but that doesn't match the capacity and accuracy of my AR. 

Still, it is very disturbing to me that someone like Eric Swalwell can run for President and be taken seriously. He is a major threat to gun rights and to American stability in general. My sincere hope is that he is embarrassed in the election and never even makes it to the first primary, but the fact that someone like him has even a long shot chance of winning the presidency is beyond disgusting. 

Is President Trump serious about dumping illegal aliens into sanctuary cities?

President Donald Trump. Official picture. 

President Donald Trump has threatened to dump illegal aliens in so called "sanctuary cities". Fox News. Despite earlier denials by the White House, President Trump confirmed rumors that the plan had been considered. Trump said the plan could still be in play via Twitter. Democrats fumed at the idea with Nancy Pelosi, who represents the San Francisco area which is one of the cities mentioned, blasting the plan. It is unclear if ICE and other government agencies will support the plan. 

Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019

....The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019

My Comment:

I'm pretty sure that President Trump is just trolling here. Someone leaked a proposal to the media, the media took it serious and Trump just went "sure, let's go with that". It certainly could happen but I won't believe that this is a serious proposal until I see evidence that it's going to happen. Right now all we have is a couple of statements from the President and that's it.

As a political move it's brilliant. He's forcing these sanctuary cities to put up or shut up. Either they have take in thousands of illegals, housing, feeding and employing hundreds of thousands of them, or they admit that unrestricted immigration is a bad thing for them. The first option bankrupts them and will cause a backlash which may result in them being voted out. The second option reveals those cities to be total hypocrites.

The reaction has been pretty predictable with the Democrats calling Trump horrible but not really offering any alternatives. Since they are preventing solutions like deportation and building the wall, why shouldn't they pay the extra costs they are inflicting on the rest of the country? That's the argument of course.

As a policy, do I like it? Not really. I'd much prefer that all of these people were deported instead. Dropping them on sanctuary cities is karma for them, but doesn't really do much to solve the problem. Concentrating them all the the same areas will help somethings but is still a long term problem. Federal dollars will still be spent on them, they will have anchor babies who will be citizens and they will cause crime and other problems.

Getting rid of these people is the only real thing we can do that will solve any of these problems. Trump has been handcuffed by congress and the various state governments but I think he can still deport at least some of them. It's just crazy to me that we aren't allowed to remove people that come here illegally. This proposal isn't really a solution, but it's better than nothing.

All that being said, I think that this isn't a serious proposal and it's just a political move by Trump. He's trying to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats and cause a media firestorm. But that's all this is. And even if it does happen it won't have much of an effect on anything. 

Julian Assange arrested in the UK.

Julian Assange gives a thumbs up after his arrest. BBC/Reuters.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London after being kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy. BBC. Assange had taken refuge at the embassy after being charged with sexual assault in Sweden, a charge that was later dropped. Assange was found guilty by local authorities for failing to surrender to the court. However he was also extradited to the United States and charged with hacking for working with Bradly (Chelsea) Manning, an intel agent who leaked classified information to WikiLeaks. He could face up to five years in prison for that charge if convicted. He could also face 12 months in prison in the UK for the failure to surrender charge. 

My Comment:

We all knew this was going to happen eventually. There was no way that Julian Assange was going to stay in the Ecuadorian embassy until he died. The situation was unsustainable and eventually Ecuador was going to give him the boot. 

Of course Assange didn't do anything to help his situation. By all accounts he was a pretty bad tenant. His behavior likely forced Ecuador's hand, and even though they were under pressure from other governments, they had very little reason to help someone who was treating them like dirt. 

Assange looks pretty rough, to say the least. Assange is 47 years old, but he looks several decades older and very stressed. He needs a shave and haircut because right now he looks like a hobo. Given the stress he's under, it's not surprising he isn't looking his best. 

As for his arrest, I'm of two minds of it. I don't like the idea of jailing journalists. Especially ones like Assange who, at the very least, release primary sources and don't put as much spin on it. Assange was providing a critical check onto the power of governments and parties by releasing information that showed how the sausage was made. That's something that needs to continue but with Assange in handcuffs, I don't know that it will.

On the other hand, the specific charge was probably one of Wikileaks more embarrassing moments. Bradly (now Chelsea) Manning was and is a joke and the info released by them wasn't really in the public interest. They also didn't redact anything, which put people in the intelligence community at risk. When compared to the Snowden NSA leaks and the DNC leaks, they did a piss poor job of not putting people at risk. 

Assange's arrest has major implications for the United States politically. Wikileaks was a huge part of the 2016 election and the DNC leaks and Podesta leaks had a major effect. Trump may have won without Wikileaks, but there was no guarantee that he would have without those leaks showing how bad Clinton and the Democrats actually are. The DNC leaks showed that they had screwed Bernie Sanders over. He may have lost anyways, but the e-mails showed that he had been treated unfairly. And the Podesta e-mails showed just how corrupt and dangerous the Clinton campaign was. 

The biggest question that may be answered is who was the source for the DNC leaks. Thought the Podesta hack was due to a phishing e-mail, it is still unknown what happened with the DNC leaks. The Democrats and the intel communities claim that they were hacked but without the servers being examined, I consider that a conspiracy theory at best. 

A deliberate leak by an inside is a lot more likely. And Julian Assange all but admitted that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker and may have been killed for it. Though that hasn't been proven, the reason that the Seth Rich theory continues is totally because of Assange. I mean, watch the video below and tell me that Assange isn't trying to say something without actually saying it. 

I personally don't know if Rich was the DNC leaker or not. He's a plausible candidate as he would have access to the data that was released and seemed like the kind of guy that would have a problem with what the DNC did. But even if he was the source, that doesn't mean he was killed for it. Assassins usually don't leave their targets alive after shooting them and Rich died in the hospital. It's possible that he really was just a random victim of crime and someone else was the leaker. 

Either way though, the DNC leak case would be the story of the century if Assange gives up his source. If it is Seth Rich and he was killed for it, then a lot of people are going to prison and the Democrats might break up as a party. And even if he isn't or wasn't killed for it, the truth coming out could be huge. 

But will Assange give up his source? And could he cut a deal to avoid the Manning leak charges? I have no idea. He and Wikileaks have been very cagey about revealing sources and if Assange does now, they may have problems with getting new sources in the future. But if he were to give it up, he might avoid a lengthy prison sentence. We will just have to wait and see what happens.