Argentina renews claim to Falkland Islands over the UK.

 

Argentine President Javier Milei at a ceremony honoring war dead from the Falkland Islands war. Time/Getty.

Argentina has renewed claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as opposed to the United Kingdom. Time. Argentina and the UK fought a major war over the Islands, which the Argentines call he Maldives, but the war ended with a UK victory. America is officially neutral in the dispute but a leaked memo claims that the US may reassess that due to the fact that the UK was unwilling or unable to assist in the Iran War. The UK, under Keir Starmer, reasserted their own sovereignty over the Falklands. 

My Comment:

To be clear, I don't see a second round of the Falkland Islands war. Indeed, Milei opposes the idea and wants to gain control of the Islands through diplomatic means. This isn't really a change and the only possible difference is that the White House might be moving away from neutrality on the issue. 

A war is extremely unlikely in the short to mid term. The Royal Navy, though a shell of it's former self, still has a couple of aircraft carriers and a major submarine fleet. They are very short on escorting frigates and destroyers, and the ones they have are often not deployable, but they still have a lot of combat power. 

If Argentina had invested in their own military, they might have had a chance to win an actual war against the UK, given how weak the Royal Navy is right now. But Argentina is also weaker than they were during the Falklands War. They never really rebuilt their forces and all they have are some old destroyers and a bunch of corvettes. They have some modern F-16 fighters but I just don't see them beating the Royal Navy's carriers, and the considerable forces deployed to the Islands. 

I mention the weakness of the Royal Navy because it's a major reason why the United States and United Kingdom are on the rocks right now. Much has been made about the unwillingness of the UK to help with Iran conflict but the fact of the matter is that they were barely able to deploy the destroyer HMS Dragon to help protect their own assets in the region. They had a carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, but they did not have the destroyers and frigates and submarines available to actually protect it. There was some discussion of them pairing up with the French so that their ship would have been protected, but instead they did nothing. 

Given those circumstances, the United States is understandably angered at the UK. They not only refused to help, they were unable to do so. So in response the United States might be reevaluating their relationship with the UK. 

But I also think that the United States realizes that there isn't much of a point of being allies with a country that is so dysfunctional that it can afford an aircraft carrier but can't even deploy it without help. And I also think that they don't really believe that the UK has much of a future. Indeed, I have been saying that for years, very few countries in Europe are going to survive in their current state given the awful state of their economy, the absolute incompetence of their leadership and the massive damage and instability that immigration is causing. 

Argentina has none of that. Indeed, they seem like a country that has not only turned things around, but has a bright future. Milei seems like a competent leader and the country has none of the problems with immigration that the rest of the world has. 

Regardless, I don't see the actual control over the Falklands changing any time soon. The people there absolutely want to remain with the UK and unless that changes I don't see how Argentina can claim the territory without it being unjust. And as long as the Royal Navy has some inertia and Argentina doesn't start seriously investing in their military, I can't see anything changing. 

President Trump safe after shots fired at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

 

Agents draw weapons after the shots rang out. New York Post/AFP.

President Donald Trump is safe after an apparent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner. New York Post. Trump was attending the dinner for the first time and an opening speech had already occurred. A man opened fire with a firearm, striking an agent who was saved by his bullet proof vest. The shooter had tried to get past the metal detectors at the event at a full sprint, but was stopped. CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that he heard around six shots. Another witness said the suspect had assembled an unusual long gun. Trump was not the only high ranking official at the dinner, as Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Health and Human Service Director RFK Jr. were all in attendance. No motive has been released for the attack.

The AP has live updates for this story.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump DROPS SECURITY FOOTAGE appearing to show tonight’s shooting breaking out at the WHCA dinner

Glad the Secret Service got the scumbag and everyone is SAFE 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/uuZ8YGbzYP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 26, 2026

 

My Comment:

This marks the fourth major assassination attempt against Donald Trump since his political life began. There was the illegal alien that tried to disarm a cop in 2016 in Las Vegas, the Butler assassination attempt, the Florida Golf course assassination attempt and now this. There were other attempts as well, but these were the major ones and the ones that at least had a plausible chance of succeeding. I do believe that this incident means that Trump has faced more threats to his life than any other American President. 

This was extraordinarily concerning, not just because of the attack against Trump, but the fact that most of the Presidential Line of Succession was there too, at the very least the top three. Trump, Vance and Mike Johnson were all there and if this assassin wasn't stopped when he was, we might have been swearing in Chuck Grassley as President... And it wasn't just Republicans at this dinner, at the very least Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats leader in Congress, and Senator John Fetterman were there as well. 

The suspect has been identified online but it's too early to tell what his motivation is. President Trump said it he was likely a "lone wolf nutjob" and that's probably accurate. He's been identified as Cole Allen, a 31 year old teacher from California but no motive has been released. Trump said it was unlikely that it was related to the Iran conflict but as of right now, it is a possibility. 

I did listen to Trump's press conference and I have to say, it seemed like this affected him pretty deeply. He praised the folks that protected him and said that it's a risk of his job. Trump was his usual braggadocios self, but I did notice that his voice cracked a little when he was talking about his wife Melania's reaction to the shooting. Trump remained fairly calm during the shooting but it's also clear that he understands just how dangerous his job is, and mentioned that race car drivers and bull riders have a lower chance of death than an American President. 

The political implications of this are yet to be seen, but I do think that the press realizes that this was an attack on them as well. I don't think that means they will suddenly start giving Trump a fair shake, but they might indeed tone down the rhetoric a bit. Indeed, Wolf Blitzer was put in physical danger in this incident so maybe things will change? Same with the Democrats in the audience, Trump and his team might have been the targets but they were in the line of fire too. 

One thing that I don't think will change is the rhetoric coming from the far left in this country. The leadership of the Democrats is condemning this attack, but the message from Reddit and BlueSky appears to be that "this was staged and Trump deserves it anyways". I just don't think those folks have any shame anymore, and little connection to reality, and if Trump getting shot on stage in Butler didn't change anything, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't change anything, I don't know why this would either...

President Trump has rescheduled Marijuana making it legal for medical purposes

 

File photo of a marijuana plant. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has rescheduled marijuana making it legal for medical purposes federally and allowing medical research. NPR. The drug has been moved from Schedule I, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, to Schedule III, which includes drugs like Codeine and steroids. Schedule I drugs are ones that the government have ruled have no medical purposes, but Schedule III drugs are recognized to have legitimate medical uses. The change will not legalize private use but will allow patients to use FDA approved drugs and state regulated ones as well, while other forms of the drug will remain Schedule I. Medical marijuana companies and companies are big winners in the change as they will be able to operate more openly. Anti-marijuana groups may attempt to block the rescheduling of the drug. 

My Comment:

I am not sure what the reaction to this will be. Obviously anti-pot groups are going to be upset and there are a lot of people that believe that marijuana has no medicinal use. Those people are not going to be happy. But pro-pot people? I am not sure they will be happy either as this doesn't go far enough for them. 

I don't really think this will be blocked though. The anti-pot people are a minority and this seems like an easy thing that Trump can do. I don't know on what basis they can challenge this. My guess is these anti-drug groups are going to file lawsuits but those lawsuits will absolutely fail. 

As for pro-pot groups, they are absolutely going to want to go further than this, they want full legalization and simply rescheduling some of the forms of marijuana for medical use only is not going to be enough for them. They want pot to be as easy to buy as alcohol and obviously this doesn't go that far. 

So is this the right move? I think so. I don't know if I support full legalization but I do think it's worth it at the very least to study pot to see if it can actually help sick people. I do think there is pretty good evidence that it can help people with glaucoma and cancer patients so I have zero problem with those people having better access to these drugs. 

It does seem like this will be the first step for full legalization of pot. 24 states, plus Washington DC, have legalized recreational use while 40 have medical marijuana laws in force. My state, Wisconsin, has essentially a full ban, but even here cracks are forming. 

Is that going to be a good thing? I am not sure. Obviously, legalizing pot has been an economic boon for states that have legalized it. Indeed, folks in Wisconsin often drive north to Menominee Michigan just for pot, helping the economy of that town quite a bit. Millions in tax dollars are collected as well. 

There are downsides as well. Folks don't like seeing people high on weed while out in public. And a lot of people drive while high, which is obviously dangerous. I also think that the younger generation's switch from alcohol to pot is a major reason why they have so many problems forming friendships and relationships. Pot makes you satisfied with doing nothing while booze acts as a social lubricant and gets people to loosen up. 

Regardless, I do think that this half-measure is probably the right way to do this. The people that could benefit medically will at least get a chance to try and more research can be done. We will, at least in states where it isn't fully legal, avoid the downsides of the drug and the folks that need help will get it. I think that's a positive development. 

Another member of Congress, Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, has resigned in the wake of a scandal.

 

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. Fox News/AP.

Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick has resigned in the wake of a major scandal. Fox News. The Florida Democrat was accused of stealing Covid relief funds and has been indicted by a grand jury. The House Ethics panel found that she had stolen the funds and there were preparations being made to expel her from congress. She has denied wrongdoing and said she was resigning to help her constituents. She is the third member of Congress to resign in a week after Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzalez did so last week due to separate sex scandals. A fourth member of Congress, Cory Mills, who has been accused of domestic abuse and stolen valor, could face expulsion as well, though the House Ethics committee has not ruled on his case yet.  

My Comment:

This happened yesterday, but it was a pretty slow news day. And it is an important story. McCormick was pretty obviously guilty of the crimes she was accused of and it was pretty clear that she was going to be expelled from congress. 

So why did she resign? I am guessing it was to help with her criminal trial. She's facing a very long sentence and I think she is probably going to go to trial. If she was expelled from Congress it would be a huge problem for her even though I would think that the judge would want to keep that under wraps to the Jury. Still, why take the risk of a savvy juror knowing that she was expelled from Congress? 

Plus it allows her to save a little face. It's absolutely humiliating to be expelled from Congress, which is why Swalwell and Gonzalez resigned as well. In those cases neither man had faced anything like a fair trail but both were perceived as guilty enough to kick out so they resigned. A similar thing happened here. 

This does have implications for the control of the house. When Swalwell and Gonzalez resigned, it didn't matter because they were both from separate parties. But with McCormick resigning, there is a potential gain of a seat for the Republican Party. The GOP's lead there has been very narrow for awhile now so extending that could be a victory for them.   

The question now is if Cory Mills survives. Unlike McCormick the accusations against him haven't been vetted and there hasn't been a flow of new accusations against him. If the Ethics Committee does find him responsible for the stolen valor and domestic abuse allegations, he will be out too. But so far he hasn't been. 

Nancy Mace has introduced an expulsion of Mills but supposedly he's doing the same thing to her. I think he has a point, he deserves some due process for the accusations against him. And I don't believe for a second that Mace is doing it for anything other than her own publicity. Either way though it's very possible that we will see another tit for tat resignation in the wake of the McCormick resignation. 

DOJ charges the Southern Poverty Law Center for fraud after it was found that they were funding, not fighting, right wing extremism.

 

Acting US Attorney Todd Blanche and FBI director Kash Patel. New York Post/AFP/Getty.

The Department of Justice has charged the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for fraud after it was found they were funding right wing groups. New York Post. The SPLC had donated millions of dollars to members of right wing groups, like the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and even an organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The SPLC says that these people were informants, but the government accused them of hiding payments to them and for purporting to fight right wing extremism while funding them. The government argues that this was fraud as the payments to right wing groups was not disclosed to donors. The SPLC even went so far to use shell companies to hide the payments. 

My Comment:

It's been a truism on the right that the demand for rightwing extremism far outweighs the actual supply and that most noticeable extremist groups on the right are infiltrated with informants and undercover law enforcement agents. This is very strong evidence that the idea isn't off base. The SPLC was funding right wing groups for years.

The SPLC is saying that these folks were just informants, but even if that is true and this wasn't an effort to make a problem where non existed, what they were doing is indeed fraudulent. Paying informants doesn't appear to be illegal, but not disclosing that to the donors that paid for it was. You can't claim to be an anti-right wing network while at the same time paying the people that they are supposed to be fighting, many of the people that gave money to the SPLC would not have done so if that had been disclosed. 

Using shell companies to hide the payments is a big no-no as well. The victims in this case would be the banks that processed the payments, which is illegal to lie about. It's something that I don't think the SPLC can defend, though their argument is that it was to protect their informants. Though somehow I doubt that the leadership of these right wing groups were checking their memberships for unusual payments from the SPLC. 

The SPLC's involvement in the Unite the Right rally also makes a lot of sense. The rally, which ended with a death after a woman was hit by a car, pretty much destroyed the far right in America and it's clear now that the SPLC was helping out quite a bit. They were paying for transportation to the rally and I wouldn't be surprised if the tiki torches were there idea as well. 

The damage that rally did to the right is hard to understate. The right was ascendant when the rally happened but it really did change things. Suddenly the right was scary again with the tiki torches sending the exact opposite message that they wanted to send. And it didn't help that someone died. To find out that the left was deeply involved in that rally to the point they were paying for transportation is not surprising, but it does vindicate a lot of what I believe. 

Will the government get a conviction? You never can tell these days. Given the evidence, I don't think there is much doubt that the SPLC is guilty of at least some of what they are accused of, I don't know how you defend using shell companies legally. But with all prosecutions of left wing crimes, I worry about jury nullification, activists judges and 100 other lawfare efforts that the left is going to use to defend the SPLC. Time will tell if the charges stick...