New picture shows China's Navy in formation with 40 ships, including their aircraft carrier.

Planet Labs. 

The above picture shows China's Navy with forty ships all in formation, including their aircraft carrier. Business Insider has a bit more information on this, but I mostly wanted to show off the picture. It's a little small here but if open the image in a new tab and zoom in you can see the aircraft carrier and a few larger ships clearly. 

It's fairly impressive as it is very rare to see that many ships in one place at one time. Most of the ships are small, frigates and destroyers but there are a few heavy hitters including submarines and the air craft carrier Liaoning. It's a major show of force and a message to China's enemies and neighbors. Don't mess with us. 

Unfortunately for the Chinese this formation isn't a very practical one. With all the ships lined up in a row there isn't much they can do in terms of missile defense. If they were more spread out it would be a much safer formation but as it is right now the whole fleet could be destroyed. 

Not much else to say other than I was impressed with this picture. It's not anywhere near as impressive a similar sized fleet would be if the ships were American but it's still pretty cool. 

Trump says US forces are going to leave Syria soon.

President Donald Trump. Politico/AP.

President Donald Trump says that US troops will withdraw from Syria soon. Politico. In a speech in Ohio, Trump said that ISIS is being defeated and once they are gone the US will withdraw troops. 2000 troops are stationed in Syria helping the Syrian Kurds fight ISIS. ISIS has lost the vast majority of their forces and territory in the past year and now only control a few small towns and villages. The statement is different than what top Trump administration officials have said in the past. 

My Comment:

Interesting news from the Trump administration. I would be very happy to see US troops home from Syria. Other than defeating ISIS we don't actually have many interests in the country. ISIS was a major threat to the American homeland and they were funding and inspiring horrible terror attacks throughout the world. That threat has been greatly reduced due to our actions in Syria. 

The other goals in Syria aren't really ones that can't be accomplished through other means. Yes, we want to counter Russian and Iranian influence in the country. But we don't need troops on the ground to accomplish that. Diplomatic pressure and our already strong presence in the region can accomplish the same thing without the cost in money and lives that we incur by staying in Syria. 

My only fear is that the other massive terrorist army in Syria, al-Nusra, has not been defeated and still control a decent chunk of Syria. Though al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, hasn't extended their attacks outside of Syria the way that ISIS did, they are still a organization that is capable of doing so. Withdrawing before they have been defeated could be a mistake. But since our current strategy seems to be "let the Russian's handle it" not much would change. 

I would say that our mission against ISIS isn't complete quite yet. ISIS still controls a few small towns and villages and are still active. Worse still, our Kurdish allies have withdrawn from the fight against them to better concentrate on the Turkish invasion. That means the fight against ISIS will likely fall to the Syrian government. 

That being said, I think that our main goal in Syria has been accomplished. ISIS is no longer much of a threat. Core ISIS hasn't pulled off a major attack in a long time and even ISIS inspired attacks have dropped off. The threat of terror attacks, chemical weapons and conventional attacks has dropped dramatically. 

There seems to be some disagreement between Trump and his advisers. Politico seems to be overplaying the differences since a lot of them were between Trump and Rex Tillerson and Tillerson is not there anymore. There does seem to be a little bit of conflict between Trump, Mattis, Bolton and Pompano, but I doubt it is anything serious. 

Why? Because Trump left a huge loophole in his withdrawal plan. He said he would pull back troops after ISIS has been defeated. Though ISIS has been greatly reduced, they aren't defeated. Doing so completely could still take a lot of time, especially considering the facts on the ground. ISIS had a lot of pressure taken off of them when the Turks invaded and many of the remaining ISIS strongholds are in places we can't easily hit. 

It may be months before ISIS is defeated to President Trump's satisfaction. He said he wants to withdraw "very soon" but there aren't any concrete plans to do so. My guess is that it won't happen right away and any conflict with his advisers is being way overblown by the media.

Crazy video shows a near miss for a UAE F-16 almost shot down by Yemeni air defenses.

Screencaps from the video via The Aviationist. 

New video from Yemen shows a near miss involving a pair of two UAE F-16's almost being hit by  anti-air missiles. The Aviationist. The video shows two missiles being launched at night and then cuts to FLIR video showing the F-16's dropping flares and almost getting hit by one of the missiles. The missiles might have been delivered to the Yemeni Houthi rebels by the Iranians as they match some of the designs produced by that country. 

My Comment:

This is about as close of a call as a pilot can get. My guess is that the pilot had to change pants when he landed as he was only seconds away from death. It seems it was more luck than anything else that the missile didn't hit. The maneuvers he did and the flares and countermeasures didn't stop the missile from getting close, but may have stopped impact itself. 

I also have to say that the proliferation of anti-air missiles in Yemen just goes to show how many arms are being poured into Yemen. Much like the effect of their ballistic missiles, it has greatly changed the nature of the war there. These ground-to-air missiles have made air operations in Yemen a lot more risky. 

I don't have too much else to add in this case as I mostly wanted to show the video. It's not every day you see a close call like this, so I figured I would post it. 

Another clash between US forces and Russian mercenaries avoided.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis in Kabul, Afghanistan. Reuters. 

Another major clash between US forces and Russian mercenaries has been avoided in Syria. Reuters. The US noticed a buildup of Russian mercenaries and Syrian regime troops near the city of Deir Ez Zor. This buildup matched the buildup that preceded the incident in February where a large force was destroyed by US air power. Up to 300 Russian mercenaries were killed in that incident which remains somewhat mysterious. After noticing the buildup America contacted Russian commanders on the ground which diffused the situation. 

My Comment:

Looks like we avoided another major incident in Syria. And it's clear it's because we actually talked to the Russians this time. Doing so avoided another major conflict and probably saved a lot of lives. Avoiding a potential conflict is a very good thing. 

The last incident could have resulted in a major conflict. We killed a whole lot of Russian mercenaries and their allies. For whatever reason though the Russians didn't seem to care. They never made a big deal out of the fact that we destroyed a large number of their troops. The mercenaries aren't officially Russian troops, but even the killing of a large number of Russian citizens should have caused some kind of response right?

Why didn't Russia care? Probably because it would have been bad press for the Russians. It must have been very embarrassing for them to lose so many troops in such a lopsided battle. Putin's intervention in Syria isn't very popular either and he was up for reelection. Though there was little chance of Putin not being reelected, if anything could derail it, his actions in Syria could do so. Plus it hurt the reputation of Russian fighters being slaughtered so convincingly. 

I still don't know what the point of pressuring US troops in Syria is for the Russians. Obviously the Syrian Regime wants us out and to regain control of the Kurdish controlled areas, but the Russians don't get much out of that. They are also allied to the Kurds and gain little by creating a conflict with America. 

My guess is that these attacks and buildups were not really the fault of the Russians but the regime in Syria. They likely hired the mercenaries and ordered them to try and take back some territory from the Kurds. Syria is in the clean up phase of the war, or at least they would be if it wasn't for all the foreign governments in the country. So they decided to launch a strike to encourage one of those governments to leave and used Russian mercenaries to do so. That way they had plausible deniability. It obviously didn't work out for them and they wasted a bunch of troops that could have better been used fighting ISIS or other rebels.  

I think the first massive response against the mercenaries made it very easy for them to back down again after we contacted the Russians. The Russians didn't want to be embarrassed again and understand that there isn't much they could do to win against US forces in Syria. My guess is that if there are any other buildups in Syria they will be handled very quickly, just like it is in this case. 

Former Supreme Court Justice calls for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Steve Petteway. 

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has called for a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Hill. Stevens said efforts to ban semiautomatic firearms, raising the age to buy firearms and universal background checks are a "good start" but said lasting change would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Stevens argued that there is no right for individual gun ownership and that repealing the 2nd Amendment would allow gun companies to be sued for people using guns. 

My Comment:

You can read the opinion piece by Stevens here. 

What's my take on it? It's about the most disgusting thing I have ever read. The very idea that completely banning the vast majority of firearms in this country, semiautomatics, is a first step is so far beyond the pale that I would say it was a parody but it appears to be all too real. Such  ban would have a decent chance of causing a civil war if the government was stupid enough to go door to door to enforce it. 

But Stevens wants to go even further and fully repeal the 2nd Amendment, getting rid of the right to keep and bear arms. Such an act would almost certainly result in civil war and would be the end of the American Republic. I can't imagine that there are many gun rights advocates or even run of the mill Republicans that would go along with such a repeal. The 2nd Amendment is one of our most treasured and won't be given up without a fight. 

I also think that it would cause huge federalism problems as well. My right to keep and bear arms is not only guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but by my State's constitution. 44 states have such a provision and repealing the 2nd Amendment would violate each one. A list of each state that has these provisions and how they are worded can be found here. Obviously Federal Law trumps State Law but destroying the constitutional right of 44 states is horrible and not something the States would accept. 

I think this really goes to show the ideological underpinnings of the gun control movement. The last few weeks have shown that they, despite protestations that they don't want to take away guns, really, really, really want to take away guns. Some of that is ignorance as many people don't understand that a semi-auto or an assault weapon ban would essentially ban the vast majority of firearms, but there really are a lot of people out there that want all guns banned and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution repealed. 

I also think that this is a rather naked and blatant attempt by Stevens and the New York Times to shift the Overton Window to get the idea of repealing the 2nd amendment inside of it. At the very least it is an attempt to make the demands of the gun control movement, who don't support a 2nd amendment ban, at least in terms of words, not action, sound more reasonable in comparison. 

Many on the gun control side will protest that they really don't want a full ban and that nobody is going to try and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Those people are either lying to you or lying to themselves as it is very clear that the movement is trying to go in that direction. Until a serious effort at compromise is made (ie giving us CCW reciprocity, opening up NICS to civilians and getting ride of the suppressor and short barrel rifle bans and a complete guarantee that the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere) no one is going to believe gun control advocates that say they don't want a repeal. 

All that being said, could such a repeal happen? Almost certainly not. A constitutional amendment vote would require 2/3rds of the Senate and House to go along with it or a constitutional convention, which is even more unlikely, to pass into law. Republicans control both houses, would never go along with this, and even if they get wiped out in the 2018 midterms the Democrats wouldn't likely win so much that they could reach that 2/3rds threshold. Something would have to massively change in this country in terms of party affiliation for there to even be a chance of this succeeding. 

And even if they did I don't think the Democrats would try it. They understand that even advocating a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would galvanize the Republicans like never before and could even result in violence. And that's before anything was passed. If it did, then there would likely be fighting, death and destruction. I sincerely hope that nobody on either side really wants war, but if this is the way the gun control movement heads, I don't see how it can be avoided... 

Finally, I am extremely thankful that Justice Stevens is no longer on the bench. He was always wrong on gun rights and wrong on quite a few other things as well. As far as I think, any nominee that would repeal any of the bill of rights amendments should be completely disqualified from serving and should be removed from the bench if they express that opinion. That, too, would require a constitutional amendment to pass, but I think my suggestion has a better chance than a 2nd Amendment repeal!  

Democratic candidate in local election jokes about killing gun owners.

Democratic candidate for Sheriff of Buncombe County R. Daryl Fisher , North Carolina. The Federalist. 

A Democratic candidate for Sheriff in Boncombe County, North Carolina made a joke about killing gun owners. The Federalist. Daryl Fisher made the joke at a campaign event to laughter and applause. After listing several proposed regulations, including banning all "military style" weapons and magazine limits, Fisher made a reference to the popular "from my cold dead hands" statement. He shrugged and said "ok" suggesting he supports killing gun owners if they don't go along with gun control. The video clip can be seen below. 

Suggests killing people to take their guns... Daryl Fisher candidate for sheriff in Buncombe County... pic.twitter.com/pKyPATLx1h

— The Red Elephants 🐘 (@RealRedElephant) March 24, 2018

My Comment:
This is pretty obviously outrage porn for the outlets covering it, including me, as this is a fairly minor race in a solidly Democratic county. North Carolina as a state is very unlikely to pass any of the draconian laws that Fisher wants and if he were to start killing gun owners he would be removed quickly. And it seems pretty clear that this was a joke, though an offensive and poorly timed one, so there is little chance of him actually doing anything.

Still, this story is disgusting to me. I am not saying that there are things that you shouldn't joke about because he does have a 1st amendment right to say whatever stupid thing he wants. But to joke about killing people over gun laws? That would not ever fly in the other direction. President Trump got eviscerated in the media for saying that "2nd amendment people" could stop Hillary Clinton, without even suggesting violence.

The double standard is pretty obvious and is my main problem with this. This case, along with the inexplicable case of a Democratic Congressman saying that the 2nd amendment should be used to stop Trump, and the lack of outrage in mainstream media for both cases is very telling. Apparently advocating or joking about violence is a mortal sin on the right but excusable on the left. I tend to advocate for tolerance for bad jokes but I also don't mind calling out people when they break their own rules.

 Of course this will likely backfire on the Democrats. Fisher is in a safe Democratic stronghold so he has little to fear but it could have an effect nationally. The problem is that he's pretty much confirming the fears of gun owners everywhere. And that fear is that Democrats want to kill us over gun rights and other things.

 Is that fear justified? In some cases yes. We all remember Antifa, the Black Lives Matter terror attacks and the attack on the congressional baseball game. But I don't know how widespread those views are. The few liberals/Democrats I know in real life don't support violence but I do think there is an undercurrent of people that would love to use force to impose their will on their political enemies. And given how high tensions are right now it's probably a bad idea to inflame them by saying something like this.

I do have to say that the dumbest thing about this is the idea that such a scenario would play out the way the sheriff seems to think it would. Not everyone would resist a gun confiscation scheme but I am pretty sure a shooting war would break out very quickly if local authorities started out and out killing people for owning guns. I'm about 99% sure that it won't happen but the idea that it would be an easy or smart thing to do is just insane and should be something that both sides of the debate should be trying to avoid.

New videos show Saudi air defenses defending against a ballistic missile strike from Yemen.

One of the Patriot missiles blowing up in mid air. The Drive/Warzone.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia has fallen under ballistic missile attack yet again, as part of the war with the Houthi rebels. During that engagement the Saudis launched multiple Patriot missiles at the missiles and may have managed to shoot one of them down. 

None of that is new or even that noteworthy but some amazing footage is being released on social media. I'm going to post them below. 

Alhumdillah The saudi army has successfully intercepted a ballistic missile in the riyadh #saudiarmy #riyadh #riyadhnow #الرياض_الان
I hope everyone is safe and fine many prayers to the brave and strong army ❤️ 🇸🇦🇸🇦🇸🇦🇸🇦 #الرياض pic.twitter.com/n1ThqBpO1r

— Adnan (@adii_khaan) March 25, 2018

The first video shows a volley of three missiles being fired. It seems as though the first missile either exploded right away or managed to intercept the missile right next to the ground. I think a malfunction is the much more likely possibility. Later in the clip, it seems as though the missile impacted with something, so it is likely that one of the ballistic missiles were destroyed.

BREAKING: Saudi air defense intercepts ballistic missile over Riyadh; loud explosions heard across the capital pic.twitter.com/gprUbjEN8C

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) March 25, 2018

The second video shows an explosion in mid air that indicates a successful hit on the incoming missile. That doesn't mean that the interception was successful but at leas they were able to hit the missile.

The #Saudi Air Defense :
Hitting what we were assigned to protect.#Riyadh pic.twitter.com/kXF9tCLkgL

— Wael (@WaelAlRussi) March 25, 2018

The final video shows a catastrophic failure of one of the patriots. Instead of hitting the incoming ballistic missile it shoots up and then slams down into the ground causing a huge explosion. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what these weapons are meant to accomplish.

 Overall this engagement was only a partial success for the Saudis. They managed to hit one of the enemy missiles though it's not clear that the missile was destroyed. On the other hand they had at least one critical failure and the first video probably shows a second. This isn't the greatest result for the Saudis vaunted missile defense system but those systems have never been super effective.

Update: French police officer who exchanged himself for a hostage has succumbed to his wounds...

Lt. Col Arnaud Beltrame. CBS News/AP.

The hero cop who exchanged himself for a hostage during the ISIS attack in France yesterday has succumbed to his wounds, bringing the death total for the attack up to four. CBS News. Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame disarmed himself and exchanged positions with a female hostage knowing his chance of survival was low. He left his cell phone on and when the suspect shot him, the rest of the police rushed in and killed the attacker. Beltrame was already a decorated member of the police and had served a tour with French forces in Iraq. In 2012 Beltrame received one of the highest French awards, the Order of Merit. 

My Comment:

I covered this attack yesterday here. I don't have much to add to the story that I didn't say in the last post but I thought I had to point out that Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame was a hero. And from what it sounds like he was a hero long before the events that took his life. He had already one the Order of Merit and he served in Iraq. 

I would have to say that Beltrame went above and beyond the call of duty in this case. Though it was his job to risk his life he decided that saving the life of the hostage was worth the very obvious and almost certain risk of death. I am guessing he knew that he probably was going to die. That's more than can be expected of anyone, but he stepped up to the plate. 

It's very clear to me that Beltrame was a great example of French heroism and a great example for his country. I join French President Emmanuel Marcon, who said Beltrame died a hero. I wish his family, comrades and arms and friends all the best and hope they know that Beltrame died in service of his country. 

Terror attack in France kills three people

Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame swapped himself for the hostages and was critically wounded. BBC/PA.

A terror attack in France has killed three people, not including the attacker, and wounded 16 more. BBC. The suspect, a 25 year old named Redouane Lakdim, claimed he was an ISIS supporter and demanded the release of one of the Paris attackers, Salah Abdeslam. The attack began in Carcassonne where the suspect murdered and carjacked a civilian. He also shot a police officer that was jogging. The suspect then ran into a supermarket in Trebes and killed two people while taking the rest hostage. During the siege that continued, police secured several hostages but one was left as a human shield. A police officer named Lt. Col. Arnaud Baltrame volunteered to take the woman's place. The suspect eventually shot Baltrame and a tactical team killed the suspect. The suspect was known to French intelligence agencies. 

My Comment:

This story is completely flying under the radar in the United States. Sure, today was  a big news day otherwise, with the huge spending bill passing and a lot of other things happening, but a major terror attack in France should have been a top headline. 

This attack could have been a lot worse. The suspect somewhat inexplicably took hostages instead of just going for a high body count. That descion was motivated by the desire to see the release of one of the Paris attackers but it resulted in a much lower casualty count. This is a very good thing and it probably saved quite a few lives. And it obviously failed in his goal, which had no credible chance of happening in anyways. 

This seems like a "lone wolf" attack rather than a core ISIS attack. Though ISIS has claimed the attacker as one of their own, I doubt he had anything resembling an actual link to the terror group. Instead, he was probably radicalized by online propaganda or local radicals. 

I had been expecting a major terror attack in Europe for quite some time. ISIS has been very quiet lately. The pace of attacks has greatly decreased but I knew that the terror group isn't done yet. I was expecting an attack an warned just a few days ago that an attack was overdue. Still, the pace of attacks has very obviously declined.  

 Part of that is because they have been defeated on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria and no longer have the power and money to pull off major terror attacks. Part of it too is the fact ISIS propaganda has taken a huge hit as well. Their core groups aren't able to strike and even the lone wolf attackers can't be reached as easily. 

There was very little information about the kind of gun used by the attacker. Despite fairly strict gun control in France, terrorists seem to have very little trouble getting guns to commit these attacks. The presence of a gun though suggests a larger conspiracy as getting a gun requires a link to the black market in most cases. Still, it goes to show the limits of gun control when it comes to preventing mass shootings/terrorist attacks. 

If there is any good that will come from this attack it is the example set by Lt. Col. Beltrame. Offering yourself up as a hostage to save an innocent woman is one of the braver things I have seen recently. It's a great example of heroism in action and Lt. Col. Beltrame is a credit to all of France. I sincerely hope that he survives.  

Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi suggests a 2nd Amendment solution for President Trump?

Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-New York). Official picture. 

A Democratic Congressman has been criticized for appearing to call for a "2nd amendment" solution in response to President Trump. USA Today. Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi, from New York's 3rd district, suggested as much at a town hall meeting. He said that if the courts and public pressure couldn't stop Trump, the 2nd amendment could. When asked by a constituent what the 2nd amendment was, he said it was the right to keep and bear arms. Suozzi's remarks have been harshly criticized and viewed as a threat against the president.  

My Comment:

I know this is an old story but I kind of wanted to talk about it anyways. It's been a slow news day and this is a good strange story that severely switches up the stereotypes between the parties. It's like bizzaro world or opposite day. 

I'm conflicted. On the one hand Suozzi is totally correct that the 2nd amendment is for overthrowing a corrupt and evil government. I obviously don't agree that Trump is either, but it's not like his argument about the 2nd amendment is wrong. The 2nd amendment was the final check and balance against government overreach and it was put into the constitution for a reason. He's absolutely insane for suggesting that it be used in response to Donald Trump, but the underlying argument is solid. 

On the other, how the hell is a Democrat making this argument? They have for a very long time said that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for anything other than the private ownership of weapons. And when Trump supposedly said something similar, even though he really didn't, they attacking him in the media for the better part of a week. Hell, one of the people at this town hall didn't even know what the 2nd amendment is? These are the people that are going to overthrow the government with guns? 

It's also the complete opposite message that Democratic Party has gone on gun rights for years and years now. The party officially says that there is no right to bear arms. They say that anyone who points out that revolution might be necessary one day is a dangerous lunatic who needs to have their guns taken away. Somehow I don't see them saying this about Suozzi and since this story is old and I haven't seen anyone from the left saying that, I guess I was right. 

Hilariously enough, the extreme gun control in New York, where this congressman is from, would make any uprising against Trump pretty much impossible. Obviously the real gun owners would not go for it leaving the people that would actually want to, untrained liberals, most from New York City, all by themselves. And they would have a difficult time obtaining weapons, especially in New York City where the laws are even more strict than the state. Not to mention that most gun sellers wouldn't sell to a left wing lunatic spouting revolution against Trump. 

An uprising from the left really isn't viable even outside of New York. Unlike a right wing uprising, the rank and file in the military and police would not be on the side of the revolutionaries. The left also doesn't have the culture of guns and training that the right in this country has. Most people on the left don't have guns and live in parts of the country where it is hard to purchase them. They would be completely outclassed, not only by the government, but by armed civilians as well. It's a horribly stupid idea. 

Plus, I don't think there really is any will to rise up against Trump. Part of it is that Trump is a huge hate sink for the Democratic Party. Without him, the party would likely fall apart due to the tension between the neoliberals and the far left. As much as they would hate to admit it most liberals need Trump. And I just don't see the left actually being willing to give up their comfortable lives in a war when elections could accomplish the exact same thing without the bloodshed. 

If anything positive for this it might get a few people into guns that wouldn't otherwise be. Of course some of them might be psychotic like that guy that shot up the congressional baseball game. But that might be the exception and not the rule. I am guessing if people take this congressman's advice and go to the gun range they might figure out that the Republicans were right about guns all along and one of the main reasons for going to war in the first place, gun rights, would no longer be an issue. That would be a good thing for everyone involved. 

Still, Congressman Suozzi was pretty stupid to say this. He is reinforcing the prejudices of the right, who think that the left wants to kill them all anyways. This could end up radicalizing people on both the right and the left. He is also being hugely hypocritical for suggesting something that the Democratic Party officially says doesn't exist. It was a stupid statement but one only newsworthy because of how unusual it was. 

Austin bomber suspect blows himself up after being confronted by police.

The main suspect in the Austin serial bombing has been confronted and blew himself when police cornered him. NBC News. The suspect has been named as Mark Anthony Conditt, a 24 year old. Conditt was tracked down by a SWAT team and was confronted by them. He then blew himself up and was shot by the police. The bombs killed two people and injured three more and involved placing packages near homes as well as one case using tripwire. Another bomb blew up in a FedEx store and that may have been how police tracked the suspect down as surveillance cameras showed someone dropping off the bombs. Even though the main suspect is dead, police advise the public to be on the lookout for other possible bombs. 

AUSTIN BOMBING SUSPECT IS DEAD. Great job by law enforcement and all concerned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2018

Another picture of the suspect dropping the bombs off at the FedEx store. NBC News/Sinclair. 

My Comment:

Though I haven't been posting about this story on my blog I have been following it since it began. It is very rare these days to see a bomber like this that doesn't appear to be inspired by Islamic terrorism, though that can't be ruled out yet. Plus his main goal seemed to be causing chaos, not a huge bodycount. 

And cause chaos he did. The people of Austin must have been terrified knowing that there could be bombs placed by their doorsteps and tripwires on their sidewalks. It is a relief that the case appears to be closed and that the danger has mostly passed. However, there is still a chance that there are more bombs out there placed before the suspect was killed. 

We also have to consider that it is possible that there was an accomplice or two. That would be highly unusual but it's too soon to rule it out. I think we can rule out the police getting the wrong man though as the fact that he blew himself up after being confronted makes a strong argument that he was the bomber. The story might not be over yet, but I think the mastermind has been taken care off. 

The bomber made a critical mistake as it appears that using the FedEx store broke this case wide open. And even if it didn't it still was a massive screw up as the pictures and video taken there would have probably identified him sooner rather than later. If he had stuck to his tactics of placing bombs and/or tripwires he probably could have continued for quite some time. It would have taken hours of police work to chase down leads barring some very lucky eyewitness if he had just stuck with what he was doing.

Thankfully he was too smart for his own good. Normally switching up your tactics is a smart move for an attacker like this. People were taking defenses against unattended packages and probably tripwires as well. But sending the packages through the mail created a papertrail and caused his face to be caught on camera. Once he decided to do that it was the beginning of the end. Plus the tactic failed as the packages were never delivered because one of them blew up before it was delivered. 

Some people may have heard that someone on reddit claimed to be the bomber. I think that is fairly far fetched but still plausible. Still there was nothing to indicate that the poster really was the bomber so until someone says otherwise I consider that to be essentially nothing. I only mention it because I wanted to point out it hasn't been confirmed yet, as of this writing. And, if it is true, it just goes to show that the world is a strange place.

I fear that this attack was successful and covered enough that it may spawn copycats. Just as mass shootings tend to do the same and everyone realized that you could kill people with vehicles after the Nice attack, I think this may convince people that these package bombs are something that they can do too. The good news about that is explosives can be tricky and we may see a few more crazed or evil individuals blow themselves up accidentally. 

I was fairly surprised that the suspect was only 24 years old. A bomber strikes me as an older, more experienced individual, not someone in their mid twenties. It's not too extreme though and it's not like what he was doing was super difficult. It's more work than a mass shooting but not as much as you would think. 

I won't speculate too much on motive other than the fact that I doubt this is Islamic terrorism. It didn't have the "go for maximum casualties" signature that they have. What it could be besides that, I don't know. I don't want to speculate either since with so little known it would be easy to paint a picture using bias instead of facts. 

I am glad that this suspect was brought down so hard and so quickly. Unlike the Unibomber that ran rampant for years, this guy was tracked down in a few days. The police (and Feds) did well to stop him and it is nice to write another story about good police work after the debacle which was the Florida mass shooting. After yesterdays mass shooting stopped by a cop that's two good stories in a row, which is a good thing.

Armed school resource officer stops a mass shooting at a school in Maryland.

Police and media respond to the attack at Great Mills High School. Washington Post

Deputy Blaine Gaskill, an armed school resource officer, stopped a mass shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland. Washington Post. Gaskill is a trained SWAT officer that had been assigned as a school resource officer. The 17 year old attacker shot a 16 year old girl and a 14 year old boy with a Glock but was engaged by the officer. Both exchanged fire but Gaskill was not hurt. It is unclear if Gaskill killed the attacker or if he killed himself. The difference in outcome between this case and the mass shooting in Florida is clear as the officer in that case did not confront the killer as he murdered 17 people. 

My Comment:

I'm honestly surprised how fair this Washington Post article was. It actually quoted pro-gun people, which is something that doesn't happen very often. It also basically said that the pro-gun people were right in this case. A good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooter. I don't like the Washington Post, but I will support good journalism when it happens. 

And it is very clear that the difference between this case and the shooting in Florida is the fact that the school resource officer actually did something besides standing around. Had officer Scot Peterson in Parkland, Florida actually confronted the shooter in that case some people probably still would have died, but there was a very good chance of him putting the killer down or at the least let the children escape. 

Before getting too much in the gun rights argument, I do want to point out that this looks like a copycat of the Parkland shooting. That event got way more media coverage than it deserved and we know that these kind of things spread via mememetics. I am guessing the attacker in this case saw that the whole world freaked out over what Nikolas Cruz did and figured he could do the same thing. It's possible he had other reasons for doing this, but my guess is he wanted to get famous in the same way Cruz is. 

Thankfully, he failed and died pretty quickly. I won't even mention his name since he doesn't deserve infamy. The kind of message we should send from this case and other school shootings is that you are very likely to die if you try it and everyone will make fun of you if you try. And that's the message I am sending. 

Still, these things are going to happen eventually but the best outcome is the outcome we had today, with an armed person killing the attacker before too many people are hurt. To that end we should have more well trained and armed police officers like Blaine Gaskill in the schools. Not enough schools have resource officers and those that do tend to only have one. 

Of course the example of Scot Peterson at Parkland shows the limitations of school resource officers. A good guy with a gun isn't a help when the guy isn't good and doesn't have the will to protect students. To prevent that, it is important to back up these officers with teachers and other school staff that choose to be armed. 

By increasing the number of school resource officers and arming teachers and other staff, we can greatly reduce the threat of school shooters. The problem now is that too many schools are soft targets where attackers know that they will have several minutes to shoot people uninterrupted. If we can change that we won't totally eliminate the threat but we can reduce it by several orders of magnitude. 

This attack also shows that a good guy with a gun works better at stopping school shootings than gun control ever could. Maryland already has very draconian gun laws and the attacker was already prohibited from buying a gun legally. He either stole the gun or was able to find an illegal seller. Neither of those things would have been prevented by further gun laws. And banning AR-15's wouldn't do anything since this attacker just used a handgun instead.

Hopefully this case will change some minds. Already it is getting more coverage than I would expect. The media for once is doing their job and covering the fact that a good guy with a gun stopped this attack. Why the media is actually doing their job in this case when they have consistently failed to do so in the past I do not know, but it is a refreshing change of pace. Hopefully it continues in the future. 

Bashar al-Assad drives himself to the front lines in Eastern Ghouta.

The above video shows Syrian President Bashar al-Assad driving from Damascus to Eastern Ghouta in a Honda Civic to visit the troops on the front lines. The New York Times has an article about it here, but that's not really what I am interested in. 

For me this is a very good example of propaganda. Even though I am sure that the route was cleared for Assad and he was never in much danger the idea of a world leader driving around in a war zone like he was a normal person is fairly impressive. Though I am sure that security measures were taken, it does seem like a huge risk to have him driving around in a Honda Civic even if the road had been cleared before hand. 

The one thing Assad has been good at is portraying himself as a man of the people. Unlike many Arab leaders he doesn't seem to fear walking among his people. This is obvious propaganda and I doubt it is working that well but at the very least it makes him look a bit different than other leaders in the area. 

As for the battle of Eastern Ghouta itself, I haven't had too much to say about it. It's another typical battle in the Syrian civil war where the government is fighting rebels, many of which are Islamic extremists. Since it is taking place in a major city, it is a bloody and terrible affair and one that is causing people to condemn Assad and his forces yet again. 

Finally, though the video is obvious propaganda, the New York Times article isn't much better. The article did a good job of demonizing Assad just like the video tried to make him look like a bad ass. I think that both viewpoints are probably correct, Assad is a brutal dictator and a killer as well as being fairly tough as well. He's obviously not a good person but demonization isn't the way to go either. 

I also wanted to post the raw video of Assad's drive. It's not translated but it's free from any commentary as well. It's from RT, who obviously also has an agenda as well, but when it comes to Syria who doesn't have an agenda? 

British woman fighting for the Kurds in Syria died in combat against Turkey.

Anna Campbell. BBC.

A British woman fighting for the Kurds in Syria has died in combat against the Turkish military in Afrin last week. BBC. Anna Campbell was 26 years old and was from East Sussex. Campbell went to Syria last year to fight with the Kurds who were at the time battling against ISIS. Campbell participated in the battle for Dier Ez Zor against ISIS but when Turkey attacked Afrin she went and fought there as well. The Kurds did not want her to go as her blonde hair would have made her stand out, but she dyed her hair black to better fit in with the Kurds. Campbell reportedly died in a Turkish airstrike and is the 8th British citizen to die in the Syrian Civil War. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I respect Campbell and her beliefs. I am not usually one to send out praise to feminists, but in this case I will offer an exception. Unlike many people in the west that claim to support women's rights and turn a blind eye to the Middle East, Campbell actually went to Syria and fought for them against ISIS. She picked up a gun and fought for women as opposed to hashtags and outrage. 

That alone is a pretty brave thing and if the BBC article is correct and Campbell saw active combat she deserves some kind of acknowledgement. Fighting as a westerner against ISIS is a fairly brave thing on its own. Doing it as a woman, knowing how ISIS treats them, is even braver. I've got a lot of respect for what Campbell was doing, even though I would probably have some very obvious political differences with her. 

On the other hand, long ago I said I would never join up with the Kurds because I knew something like this was going to happen. Not that I was ever considering it in the first place, but even if I was the prospect as an American citizen possibly being thrown into combat against a major US ally, Turkey, would not be something I would ever want to do. 

Going up against the Turkish military has a lot of different legal concerns and problems than just fighting ISIS. ISIS is an international terrorist organization, but had Campbell or any other westerner fighting with the Kurds wasted a couple of Turkish soldiers there could be hell to pay. I am not sure what the legality of that situation is but there is a chance that had Campbell survived and returned to the UK, she might have ended up in handcuffs. I'm not sure what would have been done but nobody else seems to know either. I can't imagine making war against a NATO ally would be something that can just be ignored though. 

Still, my sympathy is more with Campbell than with the Turks. I don't like the Turks offensive into Afrin, which seems to have ended with a victory for them. Though the Kurds are a bit far to the left for me to like them politically, at least they aren't fair-weather allies like the Turks. I've said dozens of times how they were poor allies in the fight against ISIS so we don't need to repeat the point, but it still stands. And I also think that the Turks interest with the Kurds is the destruction of their culture and ensuring that they will never be independent, plausible claims of terrorist action be damned. 

Speaking of the Turks, this might be a public relations nightmare for them. Afrin and the Turks actions there have largely flown under the radar. Not so much now. They just killed a British civilian and a female one at that. Plus Campbell was a feminist who was fighting for woman's rights against ISIS. Her face is going to be plastered all over the world right now and people will be asking "why did Turkey feel it necessary to kill the blonde feminist woman who was fighting for woman's rights?" Not a good move by Turkey, but I don't see how they avoid it short of calling off the offensive. 

I doubt that Anna Campbell will be the last westerner to die fighting with the Kurds. ISIS is still alive and kicking and the Turks and their Free Syrian Army allies are probably going to continue their offensive against the Kurds after the Afrin enclave is cleared out. Sadly, Campbell might just be the first of many westerners killed by the Turks. 

Vladimir Putin wins another six years in a landslide election.

Vladimir Putin at a rally. Reuters. 

Vladimir Putin has won another six years as president in a landslide election victory. Reuters. Putin will rule until at least 2024, which will leave him at 71 years old. With 70 percent of the vote counted, Putin got 75.9 percent of the vote. Putin's victory was never really in doubt as he had an 80 percent approval rate. His nearest opponent, Pavel Grundinin, of the Communist Party, only got 13 percent of the vote. Despite the high turnout and strong performance from Putin, Russia still claims that the West attempted to interfere with their election. Putin's relationship with the west has faltered lately over Syria, Ukraine, allegations of election interference and the suspected poisoning of a spy in the UK. 

My Comment:

No surprises here. There was basically no chance that Vladimir Putin was going to be defeated in this election. His popularity in Russia is very high and there aren't really any other credible candidates. It would have taken a miracle for him to lose. 

Why is Putin so popular? For many of the reasons the West hates him. They are happy that Putin stands up to the west and they generally like his policies. They also remember the bad old days under communism and the rough start that Russia had after if fell. Say what you want about Putin but without him Russia would be a very different country. 

I also think this is part of why Putin has been so confrontational with the west lately. He's been fairly aggressive in Syria and is likely the cause of the diplomatic row with the UK over that poisoned spy. I think that both actions were for domestic benefit. He wants to show that he is stronger than the west and is willing to fight for Russia. Given his high numbers, it seems to be working. 

Some might find it odd that Russia claimed that the West interfered with the Russian elections given that Russia has been accused of the same thing. Of course, Russia is totally right and we did everything we could to help his opponents beat him. According to the intelligence community it's ok when we do it, but as far as I am concerned we don't have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to election interference.   

Still, Putin is not exactly our friend, to say the least. I am not very happy with how he exploited this diplomatic row with the UK for his own election even though he was probably going to win anyways. It would be nice if we had a leader in Russia that wasn't so cynical. 

It seems very likely that Putin will rule for life. He's scheduled to be out in 2024 but he managed to keep in power despite term limits. He has changed the rules before and I am guessing if he wants to keep ruling in 2024 he will probably find away. I don't see him leaving for reasons other than health anytime soon. 

What happens in Russia after Putin is gone? Who knows? There isn't really an opposition party that has any credible candidates and Putin hasn't named any successors. I am sure they will come up with somebody but who that will be is not something I can speculate on. 

US Air Force has no real plan to procure a light attack aircraft.

A pair of AT-6 Wolverines. The Drive/Textron.

The US Air Force's plan to procure a light attack aircraft is not going well. The Drive/Warzone. The Air Force hasn't even defined what requirements they will have for the attack plane, let alone procured a large number of planes for evaluation. Right now the competition is between Textron's AT-6 Wolverine and Embraer's A-26 Super Tucano. It is possible that the Air Force will buy small order of planes and then replace them shortly after. 

My Comment:

Weapons procurement continues to be a giant mess and the OA-X program is yet another example. You would think it would be pretty easy to just pick one of these planes and deploy them but it never seems to work out that way. There are so many things that go wrong in these cases.

Part of it is lobbying and pork. This contract would bring hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars to whoever gets it. You better believe that Textron and Embraer are doing everything they can to secure the contract. 

All that being said I am excited by the OA-X program. Though the planes aren't sexy or cool, they are an important cog in the military machine that will help our troops on the ground. Much like the venerable A-10's these planes are meant to partially replace, they get the job of close air support done. 

I also think that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not have these planes deployed already. The vast majority of air support missions seem to be overkill. Having F-15's and F-16's drop guided bombs when a turboprop aircraft could accomplish the same thing most of the time for much cheaper is a waste of money. 

The only problem I have with using these small planes is survivability. The threat of air defenses hasn't been a big deal until recently. The global proliferation of MANPADS has changed the calculus a bit. 

Unlike our high flying attack jets, like the F-15 and F-16 or the tough as nails A-10 Warthogs, these small aircraft seem especially vulnerable to air to ground missiles. Countermeasures can help against that but the Islamic militants that we so often fight aren't helpless against light attack aircraft.   

Broward County releases video showing armed officer standing around during a mass shooting.

Broward County has released video showing the armed school resource officer Scot Peterson standing around while Nikolas Cruz was killing people. Washington Post. Peterson has been branded a coward for not responding to the mass shooting. Peterson claims he thought the shooting was coming from outside so he did not enter the building. Peterson has been suspended and is under investigation for his actions. The video was released on a judges order. 

My Comment:

Not much to say about this one other than it confirms what we expected. Scot Peterson was cowardly and did not to his job. All he had to do was confront the gunman. He might not have survived but it was his job to protect the students at the school and he failed to do so. And given how so many of these mass shooters kill themselves or surrender after confronted he could have saved many lives. But he didn't, either because he was a coward or because he was a complete idiot. 

I don't really buy his excuse either. I don't understand why he claims that he thought the gunfire was coming from inside when the video shows a bunch of people running from the building. If he really thought the shooting was from the outside why didn't he stop them from running into danger? All he did is stand around in either case. 

I do have to say that I don't want to make it sound like Peterson was the only person who screwed up here. He was only the one that the media is focusing on while ignoring the actions of other officers, school officials and the FBI. 

Peterson may have been a coward but he was just one of the last people to fail the students at the school. The police chief, Scott Israel, along with the school board, put into place policies from the Obama Justice Department that made sure that Nikolas Cruz wasn't arrested for his long history of crimes. The FBI didn't investigate Cruz even after he was reported twice. And other officers failed to enter the crime scene until after Cruz had fled. 

So yes, we can condemn the obvious cowardice and stupidity of Scot Peterson. But he should not be alone in that condemnation. The entire system failed the victims of Cruz and Peterson was just a small cog in that machine... 

A few quick thoughts on the gun control walk out...

My handgun. A better picture than showing a bunch of protesters. 

As you probably know a bunch of kids were encouraged to walk out of their classes today to demand gun control. Why we would listen to a bunch of kids that are demanding their own rights be taken away is beyond me but the event is getting a lot of media coverage. I have a few thoughts about it.

1. It's very obvious that these protests are not organic. There is evidence that the unions and general anti-America groups like the Woman's March are supporting and organizing these events. The kids aren't organizing themselves, it's the left's superior organization skills that are the cause of this. It's not organic and nobody should think it is.

I think that the right needs to get way better are counter-protest and organization in general. We are pretty good at giving the money to the NRA, which nets us judicial and legislative outcomes but we fail when it comes to this kind of thing.

2. It's very obvious why most of these kids went along with this. Very few of them actually care about gun rights either way, but if you give them a chance to get out of school they will take it. I am guessing if the right had the left's organization abilities we would have gotten the same turnout from kids who just want to skip school.

3. This protest shows why we should never give in to gun control. President Trump is going to ban bump stocks, which is a major new form of gun control that gun control advocates have demanded since the invention of bump stocks. Does Trump get any credit for it? Of course not. These kids were never told that there was new gun control and the organizers want nothing less than gun confiscation.

It also was a bad move for Trump. My experience with bump stocks is that nobody in the gun rights community respect them and most of us wouldn't care that they were banned. But everyone is upset that Trump just gave the gun control community a win with nothing in exchange.

You can't negotiate with the gun control groups. They don't believe in anything but a total removal of guns, further than what Europe and even Australia have done. If they really wanted compromise they would give us something for what they demand, like CCW reciprocity and suppressor legalization. They don't want that and they will never settle for anything else than full confiscation.

4. I don't expect any new major gun control laws in the future, at least on a federal level. At the state level it's a different ball game but nationally there won't be an assault weapon ban. There probably will be some changes to the background check system but that's not a huge deal and honestly after how badly background checks have failed it might actually be justified.

5. The push for gun control, though it will fail, is having a large effect on the gun market right now. There is a lot of panic buying going on right now and that means everything gets rarer and more expensive. That's a good thing for gun rights supporters and gun companies but it is annoying in one respect.

I was thinking of purchasing a new gun for myself but the push for gun control has raised prices and demand. I'm not a panic buyer, I've been wanting another gun for a long time now. But now prices are up and it's harder to find what you want. It's annoying.

I do have to say that I find it really funny that these people don't understand that they are better gun salesmen than any of the advertising buys any gun company could ever be. A lot of people said that Barack Obama was the best gun salesmen ever, but David Hogg and his stupid shill friends are making a good run on it.

6. We have to realize that the media is against this. There has been approximately zero coverage of the children that didn't participate in this event or the ones that counter protested.  I think that many children did not support this walkout but you would never hear it from the media.

Part of it too is that most of the cities where this happened in are in deep Democratic controlled areas. The media was not going to send reporters to conservative areas that support gun rights.

Turkish forces lay siege to the Kurdish city of Afrin in Syria.

Syrian rebels fighting with the Turks against the Kurds near Afrin. BBC/Reuters. 

Turkish forces have surrounded the Kurdish city of Afrin in Syria and have laid siege to it. BBC. Kurdish sources claim that every road out of the city is being shelled by the Turks. The attack against the Kurdish enclave in the Afrin area began on January 20th and is designed to remove the Kurdish forces from the area. The Turks claim that the Kurds are linked to the PKK terrorist organization. It is unclear what the fate of the civilians trapped in Afrin is. 

Map of control. BBC/IHS.

My Comment:

The situation in Syria is not getting much coverage in western media. Indeed, there has been very little criticism of Turkey for what they are doing in Syria. It looks like there is going to be a major humanitarian crisis in the Afrin region with a lot of civilians caught up in the crossfire between the Kurdish fighters and the Turkish military. 

I also have to say that the Turks are probably embarrassed about how long their offensive is taking. They have a modern military and aren't making a whole lot of progress in taking out the Kurds. It's been a couple of months and only now have they reached Afrin. 

Speaking of embarrassment, the Syrian government is probably facing some as well. They were making a lot of noise about sending troops to help out the Kurds but so far that has been just that. Noise. They certainly haven't done much to stop the Turks. That could change in the future but as of now it was all big talk and nothing substantial. 

So do the Kurds have much of a chance of victory here? I kinda doubt it. They are outnumbered by the Turks and don't have the modern equipment and weapons that they have. They are also fighting fairly far away from their main bases in Northern Syria and reinforcements have to travel quite a long way to even get to the front lines. Plus it's not like the Syrian rebels will let them take the direct route since they have thrown in with the Turks. They either have to travel through hostile territory or they have to go through regime controlled territory. 

I think that the Kurds will likely lose their enclave in Afrin but they will make the Turks pay for it. Already this offensive is taking longer than the Turks would like. The question is what happens after Afrin falls? I doubt that Turkey will be satisfied with clearing out Kurdish forces just from the Afrin enclave. My guess is that they will continue their attacks on the Kurds but in their Eastern territories as well. 

This is, of course, bad news for everyone. We have largely defeated ISIS but the Kurds are moving their forces around and are no longer fighting them. This will give ISIS a chance to regroup and recruit. Same with the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra Front. It's important to note that they are essentially working with the Turks as well. 

House Intelligence Committee finds no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Congressman Mike Conaway. (R-Texas). Reuters.

The House Intelligence Committee has shut down the Russia investigation after finding no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Reuters. The investigation also found no evidence that Russia favored Trump over Hillary Clinton and instead showed that Russia's goal was to undermine both candidates. A draft version of a report from the House committee has already been completed and will be released to the public soon. With the House investigation shut down, attention now turns to the Senate investigation as well as Robert Mueller's probe. 

THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2018

My Comment:
It's about time that this farce of an investigation was shut down. There has been no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with Russia in order to beat Hillary Clinton. Indeed, if there is evidence of collusion at all it is on the Democrats who colluded with Christopher Steele who used Russians to make his stupid dossier.

It is also major blow to the Democrats that the committee found that Russia didn't favor Trump over Clinton. Indeed, that should have been obvious once we found out that the Russians were used in the Steele Dossier. We also found out that the Russians were using facebook to organize both pro and anti Trump events. The Russians also did the same thing for Bernie Sanders but he was never accused of Russian collusion.

Unfortunately this isn't the well deserved end to the stupid Russian collusion investigation. The Senate, who have flown under the radar compared to the House, is still investigating. Unlike the House, there is less fairness towards the president in the Senate, so I doubt that they will do the right thing and shut down their investigation as well.

Unfortunately, the Mueller probe still continues and has gone far beyond it's mandate. Already the media is calling it an "obstruction of justice" probe when it was supposed to be about Russian interference with the election. Only a few Russians were charged in that case and the rest of the Mueller probe has focused on financial crimes of Trump advisers, which has nothing to do with election interference.

I think it is very important that the House Committee's report will be released to the public. I hope that there won't be that many redactions. The people deserve to see the evidence that there is no evidence of collusion. From what I understand we should get that report in a month or two, or at the very least before the November elections.

The Democrats are apoplectic about this. They understand that Trump's approval rating is improving and that Americans generally like the tax cuts. They also understand that their other efforts to hurt Trump, like the stupid Stormy Daniels story, haven't done a damn thing to undermine the President. All they have left is Russian collusion and now that story is dead, even if the Senate and Robert Mueller haven't caught on yet.

You can see this in the media. Already the media is desperate to call the House Intel Committee as the GOP committee, despite it being bipartisan. Indeed, even the Reuters article spent more time on what Adam Schiff had to say then the actual report from the Republicans. And Reuters is one of the more fair outlets... 

Another US Navy video showing an UFO has been released.

I posted video about this before but there has been a few releases from the US Department of Defense showing encounters between our military planes and UFO's. Another new one has been released and is posted above. 

The video is short and most of it is describing what we are seeing via the infrared camera and describing the various systems and information about the F-18 that recorded the video. The actual UFO footage begins at about 1:23 on the video. 

A quick note about the source of the video. It's from the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences which is a UFO group that counts Hillary Clinton's creepy campaign manager, John Podesta, and Blink 182 frontman Tom Delonge as members. Both guys were hinting something big and these videos seem to be it. The idea that a major campaign chairman in the last election is so into UFO's that he has a foundation for it is strange and having a rockstar involved as well is even weirder. 

As for the video itself, it doesn't look nearly as impressive as the last one but is still very strange. The object has no wings or any obvious exhaust plume which should be visible with the infrared camera that took the picture. It's very strange video and you can tell the F-18 pilots involved were impressed.

What could it be? Other than the mundane explanations like a camera glitch or a misidentification of a normal natural object, there are a few possibilities. The most likely is that this is some kind of human technology that the United States isn't aware of. I guess it is possible that this is a "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" thing where some black project exists that isn't on the radar of the Navy, but I doubt it. 

The very disturbing possibility is that some other country has technology this advanced. The ability to fly an object like this without a drive plume or any kind of wings is something that should be beyond the capabilities of anyone and if someone other than America has this technology then we are at a great disadvantage.

Of course there is a chance that this is extraterrestrial, a possibility I find far fetched but not impossible. I know that I, personally, have seen strange things in the sky before since I have always been a night owl that is outside a lot, but most of those things had rational explanations. I think that is true for the vast majority of these kinds of things and I generally dismiss claims of alien life as unsupported by the evidence. 

That being said, neither explanation makes much sense and both could be a very serious threat to America and our security as a nation. Either some government has technology way beyond what anyone else has or there is an outside power at work. Neither thought is comforting and I generally hope a more mundane explanation is found.

Also, as a bonus, here's a repost of the other major UFO video, via the New York Times...