Bill introduced that would make Puerto Rico a state.

Puerto Rico's non-voting member of congress announces the bill. NBC News.

A bill has been introduced that would make Puerto Rico a state by 2021. NBC News. The bill has been introduced by GOP non-voting member of congress Jennifer Gonzalez-Colan. The bill has bipartisan support with 22 Republicans and 14 Democrats. If the bill passes it would begin the process of debating what would be required before Puerto Rico became a state and would become an incorporated territory in the mean time. The measure is unlikely to pass and it is unclear if the people of Puerto Rico itself want it. Puerto Rico's politics is divided between three factions, the pro-statehood faction, which is in power now, a status-quo faction and a small independence faction. 

My Comment:

I seriously doubt that this will pass anytime soon. Though this bill has bipartisan support I doubt it has much in the way of wider support. And even if it did congress is distracted by midterm elections and all the various scandals. They are not going to get to this anytime soon. I kind of see this as a political stunt not a serious attempt to actually pass legislation. 

And even if they did, I have no idea if that is what Puerto Rico wants this. Polling has been difficult and election results are mixed. I don't think though if it was up to a vote that it is a sure thing that the statehood faction would win. The status quo and independence factions are large as well and I don't know if there are enough people that want statehood. 

I think that there are some obvious benefits for Puerto Rico if they were to join as a state. They would probably get more federal funding and would get more attention when natural disasters hit. Puerto Rico is in desperate need of investment and repair after Hurricane Maria and the economic disasters that have struck the island. 

But I wonder what America itself gains from admitting Puerto Rico. Like I said, it is going to cost billions of dollars to bring Puerto Rico up to the standards of our worst states now. We would get a bit more tax income from Puerto Rico paying income tax but I doubt it would pay more than the obvious costs.

And we can't forget that Puerto Rico is a complete financial mess. There was serious talk about the territory going bankrupt and that was before the hurricane hit. They are not in good shape financially and would be a burden if they joined. 

Politically I don't really understand why Republicans are supporting this idea. If Puerto Rico were to become a state it would mean two more senators would be in play with a congress member or two. I don't see those people being Republicans, but I could be wrong. I had no idea that our non-voting member was part of the GOP so perhaps things have changed. 

From what I understand Puerto Rico really doesn't go into the Republican/Democrat split. Their local parties are based on the idea of statehood or independence. Once they are a state, I have no idea how things would shake out. 

Still, this discussion is mostly hypothetical. I sincerely doubt that we will ever see Puerto Rico as a state. Indeed, I think independence is just as likely but the most likely outcome is the status quo. It is interesting to think about. 

German Air Force is in disarray with readiness non-existent.

German vehicles leave a German A400M. Reuters. 

The German Air Force (Luftwaffe) is at a low point in terms of readiness. Reuters. Aircraft are grounded due to a lack of spare parts and lack of maintenance. The inspection time for Eurofighters is double of what it is supposed to be. A report found that only 39 of Germany's 128 Eurofighters are ready for combat while the older Tornado fighters had 26 ready out of 93. Merkel's government has not met NATO requirements to spend 2% of their GDP on defense and it is costing Germany's readiness. 

My Comment:

Every military has fighter jets out for maintenance but the numbers we are seeing out of Germany are just pathetic. They hardly have any fighter jets that are capable of deploying. From what I understand the critical logistical planes are in no better shape. They can't deploy fighters or deploy their troops with so few planes. 

It seems pretty clear that if there is a major war Germany will not be able to contribute much. This much was clear when they did nothing in Syria and Iraq despite suffering several militant attacks. I always thought they choose not to do so but it seems they aren't capable of doing so. 

There is only one way out of this mess and that is to spend money. But Germany doesn't have the money due to the migrant crisis. Taking care of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers has drained the coffers and it seems unlikely that this problem will be solved anytime soon. 

It seems pretty clear that Germany will not be a reliable ally in the event of the war. With readiness as low as it is their contributions would be minimal. For comparison sake a single Nimitz class aircraft carrier has between 85 and 90 aircraft. Not all of those are fighter jets but the point remains that the ship has the combat power of the entire country of Germany right now... 

Man attacks newspaper in Annapolis Maryland, killing 5.

Police respond to the scene of the attack in Annapolis. Yahoo News/AP

A man attacked a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland killing five people before surrendering to police. Yahoo News/GMA. The attacker, a 39 year old man named Jarrod Ramos entered the news offices of the Capital Gazette, the local newspaper. He was armed with a shotgun and smoke grenades and surrendered as soon as the police showed up. Ramos had some kind of history with the paper and was known to them but details haven't been released. Ramos was identified via facial recognition software after the fingerprint machine wasn't able to. Earlier reports that he had mutilated his fingers in order to avoid identification appear to be incorrect.  

My Comment:

I waited to post this as new information was released. There was a lot of incorrect information about this attack and some genuine fake news. As always there were reports of multiple shooters and speculation about the motives of the attacker. In this case there was also the odd story of the suspect damaging his fingerprints, though that appears to be false. 

The media was very quick to blame this on Republicans/Conservatives. Both President Trump and pundit Milo Yiannopoulos were blamed for this attack before any information was released. Trump was blamed for "making" people be anti-media while Yiannopoulos was blamed for a joke he made about "right wing death squads" privately to a journalist, who later published it. It seems very clear that that narrative was false. And even if this had been a political motive, I doubt Trump or Yiannopoulos would have had much to do with it. People hated the media long before either of them were popular or in power. 

Instead of political, the motive for this case seems to be personal. News outlets are reporting that he had sued the news paper in 2012 for defamation. That case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence and not qualifying for defamation. Apparently it had something to do with the newspapers reporting on Ramos' harassment case where he plead guilty. Ramos appears to have held a grudge since then and finally took it out on the news paper. That suggests that pure psychotic revenge was the only motive. 

One wonders how this attack was allowed to happen. Ramos was known to the newspaper and had a guilty plea for a harassment charge. He was also apparently making threats on social media. With his past conviction of harassment he was probably not barred from owning guns as that is a misdemeanor in Maryland but you would think that he would have been investigated for making threats. Was this another "known wolf"?

You would also think that there would be some security at the newspaper. I know papers are a dying business but security has to be a priority right? Even before the news went off the deep end and pissed off half the country, they have always had crazies like Ramos making threats. You would think that there would be someone with a gun there but apparently not. And it's not like Maryland has good CCW laws, it's a "may issue" state with a de facto ban. This attack was very quick but an armed person might have saved a couple of lives. Then again, maybe not, as the police were reportedly there in 60 seconds anyways. 

This attack also doesn't play into the gun control narrative. Instead of scary black assault rifle this attacker used a shotgun. He managed to kill five people and if he had decided to keep fighting after the cops showed up he could have killed more. Since the man stopped when police showed up I doubt what weapon he used would have mattered. He probably would have killed as many people with a bolt action rifle or revolver. 

In the end though, this attack will go down in history as a minor one. Everyone was looking for a political motive in this case but it didn't exist and since Ramos didn't use an rifle it's not useful for gun control either. My guess is that this case will disappear very quickly. 

Justice Kennedy retires leaving an opening for President Trump to fill.

Justice Anthony Kennedy. SCOTUS photo. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced that he is retiring from the Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill, in what is seen as a massive blow to Democrats. AP. Though considered a center-right justice Kennedy was seen as the "swing vote" who often was the deciding vote between a conservative and liberal outcome for critical court cases. With Kennedy retiring the court is currently made up of four reliable conservative and four reliable liberal justices. Whoever Trump picks to replace Kennedy will give the court a solid conservative majority for quite some time. Democrats will not be able to block the appointment of a justice due to the 51-49 majority the GOP has in the Senate. 

My Comment:

Very good news for the GOP and very bad news for the Democrats. Though Kennedy was a center right justice he is also a swing vote and has been crucial in the courts limited liberal decisions, such as in gay marriage and abortion. It is extremely unlikely that whoever replaces him would be the same way with likely candidates probably resembling Neil Gorsuch. 

Kennedy probably retired now because of the 2018 midterm elections. Though I think the chances of the Democrats taking the Senate are overblown I do understand why a center right justice like Kennedy would want to retire now as opposed to waiting. With as obstructionist as the Democrats have been if the Democrats were to win I could see them not accepting ANY nomination from President Trump and the seat remaining vacant until Trump is out of office if they capture the Senate. That's too big of a risk for someone like Kennedy. 

As it stands right now there is likely no way that Democrats alone can stop whoever Trump nominates. With the filibuster gone, they won't be able to stop it even if every single Democrat agrees to not vote for the candidate, which is no sure thing. They can't stop this at all. There will be a lot of sound and fury but when it comes down to it, they have lost. 

But will Republicans stop themselves? Of the 51 Republicans we already know we can't count on John McCain. He's dying and even if he wasn't, he would likely block any pick Trump made out of spite at this point. That leaves one vote up in the air and Mike Pence waiting in the wings for any tie. I don't know if there are any GOP senators so stupid to piss off pretty much every Republican in the country by blocking Trump's nominee but it is something I worry about. 

What does this mean for policy? Well I think that the people worried about gay rights are probably worried about nothing. There isn't any effort to repeal gay marriage and even if there was, a legislative solution would be easily made. There might be some more edge cases like the cake backing issues, but those aren't really anywhere as critical as Democrats are trying to make out. Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. 

I'm not so sure about Roe vs Wade though. It seems extremely unlikely that ruling will survive with the kind of nominees that Trump is likely to pick. I don't think abortion is going away anytime soon but I am guessing there will be more restrictions and the idea that abortion is a right isn't going to be supported anymore. 

For me, I think the issue that is most served by a new justice is gun rights. As it stands right now the court has been extremely cowardly and won't rule on any of the draconian laws put into place in blue states. Now I am thinking that there is a good chance with a new justice we will get some good rulings. And there is no chance that a new court will try to remove the right to bear arms like they would have if we had a liberal justice. 

I do have to say that though I am happy with this, there is reason for concern. The Democrats and leftists in this country were already unhinged and were either very close to calling for violence or, like Maxine Waters, were doing so already. This was a horrible week for Democrats and one that may drive some people over the edge. I worry that there will be blood soon... 

Supreme Court upholds President Trump's travel ban.

The Supreme Court has found that President Donald Trump's travel ban is constitutional in a 5-4 descion. ABC News.  President Trump praised the descion calling it a great victory. The travel ban is the third attempt to enforce a travel ban on several Muslim majority countries and other countries. Those countries included North Korea, Venezuela, Yemen Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Chad.  Iraq, Sudan and Chad have been removed from the list. The court said that the restriction fell into President Trump's duty on regulating immigration and national security.

The full ruling can be read below:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Trump's travel ban by Katie Dowd on Scribd

My Comment:

This was always expected and I am kind of surprised that it lasted this long. Trump was always right that he had the power to regulate which countries can send people into this country. The arguments that he couldn't were never on good footing. The question was never really that controversial legally, only emotionally. 

It is disturbing how close this descion was. The four liberal justices disagreed saying that the policy was unconstitutional because it discriminated. This was not a legal argument but an emotional one. Especially since other presidents, including Barack Obama, have done the same thing. Really, blocking countries with active terrorist groups or who are national enemies is not legally controversial and is in fact a critical function of the executive branch. 

I never thought the policy was discriminatory anyways. This is for several reasons. The first one is that many of the countries on the list had active territory controlled by ISIS or other terror groups. That isn't as much of a concern as today as ISIS is on the run everywhere but it is still a problem. There was an obvious and ongoing threat form ISIS infiltrators causing trouble, much like they did in Europe the last couple of years. We had an obvious and critical interest in preventing ISIS terror attacks so this ban was always going to be upheld.   

Secondly, the ban was never just targeting Sunni Muslims. Iran's Shiite population was included as well and non-Muslim minorities in those countries were also part of the ban. And, of course, North Korea and Venezuela do not have a Muslim majority and Islam essentially doesn't exist in North Korea. It was impossible to argue that this ban targeted Muslims as these countries were included. It also did not include the vast majority of Muslims that live in countries that were not effected by the ban. 

Third, many of the countries on the list are national enemies of the United States. Iran, Syria, North Korea (until very recently) and Venezuela are not friends of the United States and are very likely to try and infiltrate the United States. Espionage and sabotage were great concerns that were alleviated by this travel ban. 

I do worry that this will cause the left to become even more unhinged. They have already gone nuts over the faux border controversy but now they have been dealt a major blow they may totally lose it. We are already at the point where leftist activists are harassing Trump officials in public and sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. This descion is welcome but poorly timed... 

Video: Saudi air defenses shoot down Houthi launched ballistic missile from Yemen.

The above video shows yet another ballistic missile being shot down over Saudi Arabia. The missile was launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen and was intercepted successfully. Reuters is saying that the missiles were likely targeting the Saudi Defense Ministery in Riyadh. 

Not much else to say other then the following. 

1. It is just crazy to me that out of all possible people it's a group of rebels in Yemen that are regularly launching ballistic missiles at another country. Sure, Iran is supplying those missile for their proxy war against Saudi Arabia, but it is still a crazy world we live in. 

2. I have no idea what that weird chanting is during the video. I am assuming it isn't a voice over but I am guessing it could be the Muslim call for prayer. 

3. It looks like the Saudis are having decent success in intercepting these missiles even if they haven't had much success in stopping the attacks. I know their latest offensive is an attempt to cut off Houthi rebels from their Iranian backers but it is clearly too soon for that to have had an effect. 

My take on Sarah Huckabee Sanders being kicked out of a restaurant.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Twitter profile picture. 

As you are probably aware a Virginia restaurant refused service to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for no reason other than the fact she works for President Trump. This has understandably caused a huge backlash and caused a political controversy. I have a few thoughts but if you want a review here's a link to CBS News.  

First of all, it's pretty clear that this caused a huge backlash for this Red Hen restaurant. People from all over the country are furious with this descion and they are attacking the restaurant. I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand it's pretty clear that this was a poor descion to say the least. For a small restaurant to piss off half the country is a major accomplishment and there was of course always going to be a backlash. People have a 1st amendment right to voice their displeasure about the Red Hen restaurant and it's ownership. I'm not happy with these people either and if I lived anywhere near this place I wouldn't be going there. 

On the other, I'm worried that the response will cross a line and will swing the sympathy back to the ownership of the restaurant. Already the far left is rallying to them despite their despicable actions. Any further harassment or worse will turn this person into a martyr. I think it's ok to not go to this place if you are upset and even to express that on social media and review sites. But I'm not comfortable with going further than that. 

Of course what is inexcusable is the fact that people are attacking the wrong restaurant. There is another restaurant with the same name in Washington DC. They are completely innocent and since they are in DC they are prohibited from doing what the other restaurant did. They do not deserve any harassment or attacks. 

Good morning! @PressSec went to the unaffiliated @RedHenLex last night, not to our DC-based restaurant.

— The Red Hen (@RedHenDC) June 23, 2018

 Did the owner have a right to do what they did? I think so. I know you can't refuse service based on gender, religion or race but I don't think that extends to politics. A lot of people are acting like people either have an absolute right to serve people or an absolute to refuse service to anyone they want but I don't think either reaction is correct. My thought is that the owner isn't going to get into any legal trouble for this. I know some states and districts ban political discrimination but as far as I know Virginia isn't one of them.

As an aside, I would argue that businesses should be able to discriminate based on any category they choose. There is the fear that people would be prevented from getting critical services but with today's social media world that wouldn't be as much as a problem. If someone were to discriminate the market would correct it with the kind of backlash that the Red Hen is getting right now. This incident is proof that the system would work. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in, so my take is either we should get rid of current protections (which is politically impossible) or extend those to politics with one major exception. 

Some people are calling hypocrisy and comparing this to the gay wedding cake issue. There is a major difference though. In those cases the customers weren't denied service as the sellers would have sold them a pre-made cake. Instead they wanted a custom cake which is essentially forcing someone to make art they disagree with. That standard doesn't exist here because there was no artistic speech going on here, simply serving the Press Secretary is not a 1st amendment issue.

This would be the exception I mentioned above. I think there is a huge difference between refusing service for someone who just happens to show up and refusing to agree to something you disagree with politically. I have a problem with the Red Hen refusing service to Sanders but I wouldn't be upset if they refused to do a custom event for her that involved speech in some way. The gay wedding cake would be an example but I could see something like hiring a band with leftist politics and forcing them to praise Trump working as well. 

I do have to say that I am disturbed about the reaction the left is having to Donald Trump. They have bought into the "Trump is a Nazi" meme far to hard for their own good. It's going to hurt them in November but in the short term I fear that simply boycotting conservatives won't be the end of it. We are pretty close to people actually committing violence against our elected officials. We saw this last year with the attack on the congressional baseball game practice and I would not be surprised if it happens again. The media and the Democratic Party is doing their best to imply that everyone who votes or supported Donald Trump are evil and some people want to pay evil unto evil... 

Mexican front runner for president says Mexicans have a right to leave their towns and illegally immigrate to the United States.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador. AgenciaAndes

The front runner for President of Mexico says that Mexicans have a right to leave their villages and illegally immigrate to the United States. The Daily Caller. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is almost certain to win July's election and he has said some rather disturbing things about immigration. He says that illegal immigration is a human right and that he would defend immigrants living in America. He also condemned Donald Trump's immigration policy repeating fake news about "children in cages". 

A second source in Spanish for these quotes can be found here.

My Comment:

Other than domestic sources and conservative media nobody is covering this story. It's a shame to because this is a gift to President Trump. It's very clear that Obrador, also known as AMLO for his initials, wants to encourage his most vulnerable civilians to leave his country and dump them on the United States. 

There is some very obvious racism and classism going on here. AMLO claims to be a far left anti-racist but it's pretty clear that ALMO views his mostly non-white underclass as a problem that needs to be removed and dumped on an unwilling northern neighbor. As a pretty clearly white man that would be problematic to say the least if he or any of the Mexican leaders were held to the same standard as American politicians are. Since he isn't, he and the Mexican government gets a free pass. 

Just imagine if the situation was reversed. America decides it no longer wants to deal with it's minorities and decides to ship them all down to Mexico. And if Mexico has a problem with it we would just call them racist. I mean that has to work right? Such a double standard. 

I'm not a huge fan of ALMO and his political views even though this sentiment is found on all sides of the Mexican presidential race. It's not an uniquely far left position unfortunately. All the other candidates with a chance in the race have said similar things about immigrants and Donald Trump. Whoever wins the Mexican presidential race, we lose. 

Still, a far left candidate is not what Mexico needs right now. Mexico's government is fabulously corrupt and expanding the social safety net is a pretty good way to expand that corruption widely. 

And it could spur another wave of migration from Mexico. Mexico isn't that great of a place to live as it is but if they take a page from Venezuela and spend all their money on social programs instead of investing into their country they could end up turning the country into a total basketcase. Especially if they provoke Donald Trump into attacking their economy. Remember remittances to Mexico from America make up a major portion of the Mexican economy and it would be trivial to tax them at 100%. 

The Mexican Drug war has a chance to spiral out of control as well. I don't trust the Cartels to just lie down and die because the Mexican people decided to elect a far left liberal. Since ALMO's plan is "hugs not guns" I fear that the Cartels could take over the country entirely... If that happens I don't see how a war between Mexico and America isn't inevitable. 

Trump and Putin likely to meet in July.

Trump and Putin walk with each other. Getty/The Hill. 

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are likely to meet in July during Trump's European visit. The Hill. The plans aren't final but are likely to take place before Trump's meeting with NATO on July 11th and his visit to the United Kingdom on July 13th. Trump and Putin have a good relationship though Trump has criticized him in the past. Both men talk on the phone regularly. 

My Comment:

Rumor has it that this meeting will take place in Vienna. I'd prefer if it was at the White House or Kremlin. Not only would that be a more comfortable place for both men, it would drive the US media crazy. I'm also concerned about President Trump's safety in Europe and would feel better if he was in a safe place. 

Both men have a lot to talk about. Most obvious is the North Korea situation. Russia shares a border with North Korea but hasn't had a whole lot of influence on what is happening there. Putin probably wants to find out what the plan is from Donald Trump himself. Hopefully Russia can contribute to the peace deal. 

Syria will likely be on the agenda as well. Though the country is much calmer than it used to be there is still much to be discussed. The biggest question is what happens to America after ISIS is totally defeated. ISIS is hanging on by a thread but after they are gone what will we be doing there? My guess is that Iran's moves in the country will be a major factor as well. 

I also think that they will have other things to discuss as well. Ukraine is still a mess and there is always the European Union causing various problems. It's not like they are going to run out of things to talk about.  

I hope that this meeting will happen and that it will produce results. There is no reason for our relations with Russia to be this low. They have improved slightly over the past few months but before that they were about as low as our relations have been since the Cold War. We weren't as bad as some of the bad old days during the Cold War but since then it's never been worse.

The good news is that one of the major obstacles to a better relationship with Russia is the fact that the Russia collusion narrative is deader than a door nail. The IG report, though not as harsh as it should have been, has completely destroyed the collusion conspiracy theory. This means, in theory, that Trump can now meet with Putin without being attacked for it. In theory... 

What's wrong with Star Wars?

The Star Wars Logo. Disney. 

It seems pretty clear that the Star Wars franchise is in trouble. The last main movie, The Last Jedi, was divisive to say the least. And the latest spin off film, Solo, wasn't just a flop, it was a bona fide box office bomb. Solo lost millions of dollars for Disney which is a huge turnaround for a franchise that basically printed money even when the movies were divisive to say the least. 

As for myself, I have seen every single Star Wars movie in theaters except the original trilogy, that came out before I was born and the various crappy spinoffs like the Ewok Adventure. I saw Last Jedi in theaters but I skipped Solo. I was all ready to go but in the end I decided that even though I didn't have much to do the weekend I could have seen it, I would rather sit at home and do nothing. 

Given that I wasn't alone in skipping that movie I think there is a decent chance that Disney has really screwed up the franchise. I mean, I was a huge Star Wars fan and had seen all of the movies, watched the cartoons, read a few of the spin off books and played a lot of the video games (some of which still rank as my favorite games of all time). 

So what is wrong with Start Wars? Why was the Last Jedi so controversial and why did Solo flop horribly? Well, in no particular order, here's a list: (A quick note, this will have spoilers from now on)

1. Too many movies right in a row. There were three movies released right in a row. In 18 months Disney released Rogue One, The Last Jedi and Solo. Doing so was a mistake. Star Wars lives on hype and by releasing all of those movies back to back gave no time to build hype. Indeed, I don't know anyone that got worked up for Solo since everyone was still talking about The Last Jedi. If Disney had waited another six months to a year between the Last Jedi and Solo they could have built a little bit of hype. It might not have saved anything but it probably would have helped. 

2. Politics. Just politics. It is very clear what side of the culture war the producers of Star Wars are on. They have people that are very important involved with these movie that spend a lot of time insulting and berating their potential audience. Kathleen Kennedy is controversial at best and draws a lot of heat. 

These people post on Twitter and call their own fans sexist and racist for not liking the direction the series is going in. Though there is some racism and sexism directed at Star Wars, since on the internet of course there is, the producers and writers don't just focus on them but use those trolls to deflect criticism of the the actual movies and games.

The NFL proves how bad of an idea that pissing of red tribe America is. They lost millions of dollars in ad revenue over the kneeling issue. The red tribe has proven again and again that they won't give money to people that hate them. Why the creators in Star Wars are going out of their way to antagonize half the country is beyond me, but it's clear that it is costing them money. 

3. Too much "diversity". Now Star Wars has always been a diverse series with both woman and minority main characters. But I never felt that the casting and writing was making a big deal out of it. Lando Calrisian and Mace Windu were cool black characters but I never felt that they were in the movie just to be tokens.  And Princess Leia was a strong woman character but not a social justice warrior. She just happened to be a woman. 

Not so with the Disney Star Wars movies. These movies have some pretty obvious pandering to "diversity". The whole point of these characters is not to be good characters but to push an agenda. In The Last Jedi, Laura Dern's Admiral Holdo was less of a bad ass female character but an obvious example of a purple haired feminist who didn't need any man telling her to do what to do. She's the worst example but far from the only one. 

How the Solo movie handled Lando Calrisian is a very good example of this. Lando was already a fine actually diverse character and one of the most popular in the original trilogy. He was cool, he was a bad ass and his character has a very strong growth arc. He's also flawed and complex. 

But in Solo, the Disney staff made some very unusual choices with Lando. They implied that he was in a relationship with a droid and people confirmed that he was "pansexual". This was a horrible idea. Conservatives were disgusted by making a beloved character a pervert with a made up sexuality while the LGBT scene was mad at the very obvious pandering. Normal people were just grossed out by the idea of Lando making out with God knows what. 

4. Not enough actual diversity. When is the last time that a main Star Wars film that didn't have a strong female brunette in a lead role? Princess Leia, Padme, Jyn Erso, Rey and Emlia Clark? All brunettes and all pretty interchangeable. Why not a blonde or a redhead? Or why not something completely different? 

And so many of the characters are humans too. Star Wars is famous for having cool or crazy aliens. Why aren't any of them major characters in the Disney Star Wars? Why not another cool bloated Hutt doing horrible things? Why not another sexy Twi'lek or Togruta as a female lead? Or even just more cool background aliens with interesting designs. The only major alien from the Disney movies is Snoke and he was wasted. 

5. Horrible use of the spin off works. One of the more controversial things Disney did is throw out the old expanded universe. The quality of the "Legends" material is famously uneven but there was some good stuff in there and now all of it is non-cannon with a few exceptions. None of it is going to see the light of day again in a major Star Wars work. 

And the new stuff? Not getting much attention. The Rebels cartoon show was well regarded but it was only on Disney XD and wasn't available to stream most places. Almost nobody saw the show despite it's obvious quality, and now that it is done very few people will see it. And I haven't heard anyone talking about the novels and comics while merchandise sits rotting on the shelves. 

We also can't forget how horribly received the Battlefront games were. The original Battlefronts were some of the most popular and well regarded Star Wars properties but when EA took over. The gameplay in both was mediocre at best, despite good graphics, but EA infuriated video game fans with Battlefront 2. Though EA dropped their lootbox scam that was so hated it was too late. The damage was done. 

6. The Last Jedi was not a good movie. I'm on the record as saying it wasn't as bad as everyone said it was, but it was very clearly a flawed movie. And I'm in the minority among Star Wars fans in that regard.  People hated the direction it took the series and disliked several of the new characters. 

Part of the problem is that the film promised answers but very few people liked what those answers were and the film also did not deliver on some of them. Finding out that Rey was just a nobody is probably the least offensive but people hated why Luke was hiding out. He tried to murder his own nephew? The man that forgave his own father despite being a real evil person because he knew that nobody is beyond redeeming? 

And they completely wasted Snoke. He seemed like an interesting character that had a mysterious background. Everyone thought we would find out who he was, how he knew the Solo and Skywalker families and what his relationship with the Sith was. None of those questions were answered and he died like a chump. 

The reaction to The Last Jedi was extreme. Though the Force Awakens was criticized for taking too little chances and just being a rehash, the Last Jedi was just the opposite. It took too many chances and a lot of people didn't like where the movie went. If it had reigned things in a bit and got rid of some of the subverted tropes it would have been a more popular movie and gotten a better reception from the fans. There has to be a choice between remaking the original series with a new polish and paint job and just throwing out the baby with the bathwater like they did in The Last Jedi. 

7. Very poor marketing for Solo. There was basically no advertising for the movie and a trailer wasn't released soon enough to help build up the hype. I honestly forgot it was in theaters the first weekend because I wasn't seeing much in the way of advertising. The goes with the rushed production schedule but even with that they could have done better. 

8. Not enough supervision of their directors. Both Rouge One an Solo needed extensive reshoots and Solo famously fired it's directors halfway through production. And I am guessing if there had been more creative control over Rian Johnson The Last Jedi would have been better received. 

This probably was a major reason why Solo flopped. The quality of the movie was probably effected by the reshoots and about the only publicity leading up to the movie was negative due to the fact that directors were fired. When the only thing you hear about a movie is the fact that it was a mess in production then why risk the money in seeing it? 

So what happens with Star Wars now? Good question. It seems as though the rest of the Star Wars spin offs, including the highly anticipated Obi Wan Kenobi movie, have been canceled. And it is very clear that The Last Jedi has trapped their writers into a corner with little way out. With Carrie Fischer dead and all the other Original Trilogy characters killed off there are very few ways to end the trilogy. 

I don't have a lot of hope that Disney will salvage the series now. They are going to double down on the politics and have failed to learn any lessons from the failures they have run into. At this point I don't know if I am even going to see the next Star Wars movie in theaters. 

A few quick thoughts about the "migrant families" faux controversy.

As you are certainly aware the American media has only one thing on their mind right now and it is the border detention situation where some children are separated from their families. This is a total non-story and it is an obvious attempt to deceive people by playing to their emotions. A few thoughts.

1. It's very obvious that this was coordinated by the media to distract from other stories. The North Korea story is a huge positive for Donald Trump and the media was unable to spin it as a negative story for him, even though they tried. They are also trying to downplay the IG report that showed incredible bias at the FBI. That story is hugely negative for everyone that isn't Donald Trump even if the report downplayed the obvious and explicit bias. The media could have covered this story any time during the past few years but they didn't until now. That isn't a coincidence.

2. The idea that criminals with children shouldn't be separated from their families as their cases are processed is insane. Nobody would argue that a murder or a rapist should get the same privilege as people are calling for these illegal immigrants. People that break the law are punished by being separated from their families, that's just justice. Why should breaking border laws be any different? 

3. This policy is old and the exact same thing happened under the Obama administration. The famous picture of children in a cage was an Obama era happening and not a current one. Everything I have seen about current conditions shows that these children are being treated well as they can be under the circumstances.

4. It's extremely clear that there aren't any real arguments being made about immigration here and the only thing that is happening is a huge appeal to emotion. Generally speaking, if someone is screaming "won't someone think of the children?", it's a good chance that you are being manipulated.

I won't be covering this story anymore as I am sure, like DACA, Gun Control, the Russia conspiracy and every other media talking point about the Trump administration, it will fade into the background quickly. I just wanted to say something about the obvious manipulation going on here.

Gunman in Washington wounds two before being shot and killed by an armed civilian.

The scene of the incident. AP/KOMO news.

A gunman in Washington state wounded two people before being shot by an armed civilian. Washington Post . The attacker has been identified as Tim Day. Police heard reports of a man driving erratically then a report of an attempted carjacking. A 16 year old girl was wounded in that incident, which involved gunfire. The suspect then went into a Wal-Mart, shot a display case and attempted another carjacking. In that incident he shot a man twice. The man was then confronted by two armed civilians, one of which shot and killed the attacker. Witnesses say a third person drew a gun as well. 

My Comment:

This is yet another incident of good people with guns taking down a bad guy with a gun. It is very unclear what this attacker was attempting to accomplish but it seems very obvious that if it wasn't for armed civilians this incident could have continued and someone else could have been shot or killed. Since the incident ended before more people were shot this will never go into the books as a mass shooting stopped by civilians even though that's likely what it is. 

This man's actions make very little sense. It seemed like he already had a car but then tried to carjack someone else. That doesn't seem like a good idea unless he wrecked his car, but even then going into a Wal-Mart and shooting a display case makes zero sense. A second carjacking is also odd, and shooting the victims in both cases seems fairly stupid. 

My guess is that this guy was on some kind of drug or was really drunk. This was not the action of someone who was in the his right mind so him being drunk or high makes sense. It's also possible that he was severely mentally ill. Either way, this was not the action of someone who was thinking clearly and it is very good that he was stopped. 

I don't really think of Washington State as a state that has a strong gun rights/CCW culture. I know that the Eastern part of the state is pretty rural and conservative but this incident occurred in Tumwater which is in the western part of the state, south of Seattle. All 50 states have CCW now and Washington is a "shall issue" state so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. When I think of Washington state I think of Seattle and Seattle is extremely far to the left on almost every political issue. Thankfully, the people of Washington still have the right to defend themselves. 

I do have to say it is encouraging that at least two and perhaps three people drew down on this attacker. I am guessing it was only two since eyewitness reports are often wrong. Still, the fact that more than one person responded to this threat is something that is very good to see. 

I also want to mention that this attack occurred in a place where guns were allowed. Unlike many places Wal-Mart is not a gun-free zone as far as I know. And even if it was, the parking lot and other areas where this attack happened would not be. That means that there were people there that could fight back. If this had been in a gun free zone, who knows what would have happened. 

Woman in France slashes two and yells Allahu Akbar.

A forensic officer examines the scene of the crime. AFP.

A woman in France has been arrested after slashing two people with a box cutter and yelling Allahu Akbar. AFP. One person was slashed in the chest while another was wounded in the face. Neither wound is life threatening and the attacker was subdued immediately by a heroic bystander. She claimed that Allah had told her to attack but no links to ISIS or other terrorist groups were found. The woman is believed to be mentally ill. 

My Comment:

I'm not sure if this counts as a terror attack or not. In favor of it being a terror attack is the fact that this was religiously motivated. The suspect was clearly acting out of religious beliefs when she attacked the civilians and even screamed Allahu Akbar, the war cry of most Muslim terrorists. She certainly acted like a terrorist.

On the other hand, no links to ISIS or other terror groups has been found so far. That isn't that uncommon for "lone wolf" attackers and often the link is just the terrorist reading propaganda online, but this really doesn't seem like the kind of attack that has direct links to a terror organization. Furthermore it's pretty clear that this woman is mentally ill. 

That being said, one of the side effects of terrorism is it provokes marginal people like this woman into acting. I am guessing that even if she was hearing voices, the context of what those voices told her to do came from the culture of France, where terrorism is a major issue. Even if this woman had no direct ties to terrorism and wasn't acting in the name of a cause, I am guessing that terrorism was a big part of why she did what she did. And even if she did had links to terrorism, it isn't surprising that ISIS or whoever would exploit her in this way. They have long used people that have mental issues as potential attackers. 

Thankfully this attack wasn't that serious. A couple of people were wounded but nobody was killed. I do have to say that getting slashed in the face is pretty terrible. That is likely going to leave a scar that will last for life and be immediately visible to everyone. Very unfortunate. 

I also have to say that a applaud the heroic actions of the electrician that stopped this woman. He didn't give his full name but his first name was Sebastian. Stopping someone that is attacking someone else is always a brave act but doubly so when that person is armed and you are not. I hope he gets the credit he deserves even though he seems to be pretty humble about what happened. 

Taxi plows into World Cup crowd in Moscow, 8 injured.

The taxi cab in question. Reuters. 

A taxi has plowed into a World Cup crowd in Moscow, injuring 8 people. Reuters. The taxi driver had a licence from Kyrgyzstan, a Muslim majority ex-Soviet country. However, the driver and police claim that the incident was an accident. The driver fled from the accident after bystanders tried to apprehend him. The man said he had been up working for 20 hours and that he had hit the accelerator instead of the brake. He fled the scene because he though the would have been killed by the crowd. 

Video of the incident can be seen below but be aware it is semi-graphic. 

Наезд такси в Москве.. жесть какая-то. pic.twitter.com/09XTwbZNPw

— Борисыч (@Borisich_glass) June 16, 2018

My Comment:
I'm conflicted about this incident. On the one hand there is a very good chance that the driver was telling the truth and this was nothing more than a tragic accident. Such accidents can and do happen and the fact that he is a Muslim shouldn't have much to do with it.

On the other, someone sees a Muslim man ramming into a crowd of people it's easy to understand why people think it is on purpose. We have all seen ramming attacks the last couple of years. It has become a very common method of attack. Hundreds of people have died in vehicle ramming attacks and the vast majority of them have been done in the name of Jihad.

And it's not like Russia doesn't have a major reason to cover it up. Though I don't care about soccer at all, the World Cup is a huge deal and hosting it is a big deal for Russia. They get a lot of prestige and respect for doing so and all of that goes out the window if they can't keep their guests safe. If this was a deliberate attack, they have a major reason to lie about it.

Either way though, this driver was very lucky he was able to escape. The video posted above makes it very clear that he was about to get killed. At least one guy was punching him in the face and quite a few more attempted to tackle him. The Russians don't mess around with this kind of thing and probably would have beaten this man pretty badly at best had he not run away.

So do I think this is an accident or a terror attack? My guess is that it really is a tragic accident. Generally speaking, terrorists do not lie about committing their attacks. They want everyone to know what they did and why they did it. They don't lie and say it was an accident or a mistake. Doing so eliminated the very purpose of a terror attack in the first place.

And though Russia has a reason to lie about the attack, doing so isn't really in their playbook. Russia isn't as politically correct as other European countries and are less likely to be apologetic to Muslims attackers. Indeed, I think the only reason it was brought up in the first place is because American media is biased against Russia and want to see them embarrassed.

Thankfully, nobody was killed in this incident and only one person was seriously hurt. Either way that's a good outcome for both a terror attack or a major accident.

Ricin plot in Germany broken up.

The apartment complex where the suspect lived. NBC News/AFP.

A terror plot involving the poison ricin has been broken up in Germany. NBC News. The suspect was a 29 year old Tunisian man named Sief Allah H. and was arrested on charges of the War Weapons Control Act. He purchased a large number of castor beans, which are used to make ricin, last May. The suspect then succeeded in creating ricin when authorities arrested the man. The suspect was planning an attack but those plans do not seem to be very advanced other than the creation of the toxin to be used in the attack. German authorities do not know if there is any connection to a terror organization. 

My Comment:

A very dangerous plot that was broken up in Germany. And it looks like it was averted just in time. The suspect had created ricin and could have killed people with it. Ricin has been developed as a chemical weapon but it is not a very effective one. Though it is very deadly, you have to use a huge amount compared to other agents. 

Making ricin is the easy part though. What was going to be difficult for this attacker was finding a way to deploy it. The ricin needs to be deployed over a large area with some kind of explosive and that is more difficult than with other chemical weapons. Such problems are possible to overcome but I don't know if this suspect had the experience and resources to do so. 

Ricin is a much better agent for assassination. Famously, the Russians have used ricin to murder dissidents. Less effectively ricin has been used in attacks via the mail. Those attacks almost always fail, but a clever attacker could use ricin to kill people rather easily. It is possible that the attacker was going to use ricin this way, but that's usually not the style of terrorists. Killing random people with ricin does not seem as effective as a spectacular terror attack with the agent, though it probably be much easier to pull off. 

Still, even with the difficulties in using ricin as a terror weapon, it would still be very effective. Even a partially successful attack would have caused a mass panic out of proportion to the lives lost. People have an innate fear of chemical weapons and a successful terror plot using them would be a game-changer, especially if it happened in Europe.  

It seems pretty obvious that this attack was motivated by Islamic extremism. I can't prove that because none of the sources I have seen have confirmed that for sure, but with the suspect being a foreign national with a very obvious Muslim name it seems pretty clear. I guess it is possible that there were other motivations but I would not put money on it. 

The question now is if this suspect had any help. There are quite a few terror organizations that have experience with chemical weapons. ISIS had a very active chemical weapons program in Syria and Iraq before they were largely defeated in the country. Though I don't recall them using ricin, they did have experience with the delivery side of the chemical weapons problem. If one of their experts on chemical warfare managed to survive they may have passed their knowledge onto others. 

On the other hand, it's not like ricin itself is hard to make. You don't need any special connections to terror groups to get castor beans or make ricn. Castor oil plants are extremely common and are a common decorative plant. They are everywhere and despite the obvious danger of the castor bean, nobody would have much trouble finding some.  Making ricin isn't that difficult either from what I understand and instructions to do so can be easily found on the internet. 

No matter what it is good that this attack was broken up. If it hadn't a lot of people could have died. Given that Ramadan ends today, it is possible that an attack was very close to happening. Thankfully, that didn't happen. 

Read the Inspector General report on the FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton e-mail case.

I haven't even begun to read this so I have little reaction to it so far. But I thought it would be helpful to post the entire document so people can read and judge for themselves. As I read more of it I may or may not post my own personal reaction to the report. Given the fact that the report is as long as a novel, I might not be able to get that post up anytime soon. Either way, here is the document! 

IG Report on FBI and DOJ Handling of Clinton Investigation by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

Saudi Arabia launches a major offensive against Houthi held port in Yemen.

The Yemeni port city of Hodeidah. Reuters. 

Saudi Arabia and their allies have launched a major offensive against the Houthi rebel held port city of Hodeidah. Reuters. The Saudis launched ground, air and sea attacks on the port city in what is being described as the biggest operation of the war. The UAE has supported the attack as well and is focusing on the Houthi's front line near the airport. Four UAE soldiers died but it is unclear if they were participating in the battle. The Saudi's plan is to capture the airport and seaport and secure the route to Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, which is currently controlled by the Houthis. The Saudis say they do not want to be drawn into a street to street fight in Hodeidah. Hodeidah is the main port supplying Houthi rebels and if taken could worsen the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. 

My Comment:

Another major battle in Yemen. And the outcome of this one could effect the entire war. If the Saudis and their allies manage to take Hodeidah, the Houthi rebels will be cut off from Iranian supplies and global food aid. Their position may become untenable very quickly and could end with the liberation of the Yemeni capital. 

I think the main focus is cutting off Iranian supplies. Those Iranian supplies have included ballistic missiles that directly threaten the Saudi and UAE homelands. And given that those warheads can be fitted with chemical or biological weapons, stopping the flow of these weapons into Yemen is a major priority. Cutting of Iranian supplies won't stop the threat but it will go a long way to reducing it to a less dangerous level. 

Of course taking the city of Hodeidah could lead to a humanitarian crisis in a country that is already falling apart. With international aid cut off, the Houthis will no longer be able to feed civilians under their control and thousands of people could starve or die when they don't get needed medical supplies. The UN claims that aid will continue regardless but I don't see how that will happen when the city is a battlefield. I doubt the Saudis want to risk the political nightmare that starving out Sanaa would cause but it's still on the table at this point.

I don't know what to think about the report that the Houthis managed to beat back an amphibious landing. My guess would be that is Houthi propaganda. The Houthis don't have the technology or weapons to match the land, sea and air power the Saudis brought to the battle. They can slow them down but I don't see them stopping them unless they made a major tactical error. 

I do think that if the Saudis manage to take Hodeidah it will be a major victory for them and bring them closer to winning the war. The war hasn't gone that well for them despite the fact that they have better weapons and technology and arms. The fact that the Houthis were able to directly threaten Saudi Arabia itself shows how badly this war is going for them. 

They aren't going to quit though. They correctly feel that the Houthis are just a proxy force for the Iranians and if they lose the war the Iranians will use Yemen as a base to attack Saudi Arabia directly, similarly to what they are doing in Syria with Israel. As long as that is the case I don't see the Saudis or their allies quitting this war anytime soon, no matter what the international community says. 

Gun confiscation law in Illinois village blocked by a judge

An AR-15. Townhall. 

A law banning so called "assault weapons" in Deerfield Illinois which would have led to gun confiscations was blocked by a circuit court judge just hours before it was to go into effect. Town Hall. The ordinance was passed in a Chicago suburb and would have given owners of rifles and handguns with a 10 round or more magazine the options of turning the weapons in, paying a $1000 a day fine or move. A judge filed a temporary restraining order as the lawsuit against the law works its way through the courts. 

My Comment:

A minor victory for gun rights and one that may have saved some lives. People could have ended up dead if they tried to enforce this ban or collect the fees for not complying. That isn't really an exaggeration either as I doubt gun owners would have complied with this law. 

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the judge blocked this law, at least for now. That doesn't mean that this suburb is out of the woods yet. This is just a temporary restraining order as the case works its way through the courts.

 I think there is a decent chance of the law being struck down. Of course any restriction on gun rights is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but the courts don't always agree with that. Even with a narrower interpretation of the 2nd amendment, this ordinance was violating it. 

I also question the legality of forcing people to dispose of property without giving them a chance to either grandfather in currently owned weapons or pay people for their property. You can't just take stuff from people outside of eminent domain and that wouldn't apply here. 

I will continue to watch this case as it works its way through the Illinois justice system. I am very thankful I live in a state with much more robust and strong protections of gun ownership. Such an ordinance would have never passed here and if it did it would be quickly struck down under state law. Hopefully, Illinois will regain their senses and no more ordinances like this will be passed and this one will be struck down for good. 

North Korea agrees to give up their nuclear weapons after Trump/Kim summit.

President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un shake hands in Singapore. Dan Scavino Jr.

North Korea has agreed to give up their nuclear weapons after the meeting between President Donald Trump and Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Fox News. The document signed said that North Korea would work to "total denucluarization of the Korean Peninsula". In return the United States will cease war games in South Korea and will provide security guarantees to North Korea. North Korea will also return any remains of American soldiers and POW's that were left in North Korea after the Korean War. Additional details will be discussed in further meetings between Trump and Kim as well as their major advisers. Trump has also said that Kim Jong Un will be invited to the White House. 

During the summit, President Trump showed a video he commissioned that resembled a movie trailer. It argued that Kim Jong Un had a very strong economic and political opportunity.   

My Comment:

Before I get into the meat of this subject I have to say that I am utterly disgusted on how the media is treating this story. It was very difficult for me to find a source for this story as almost every news media outlet out there was just being hysterically anti-Trump. There were very few articles out there that were just a restatement of the event without all the side commentary. The Fox News report was the first one I found and it took a frustrating amount of googling to find even that.  

I understand that there is a need to be critical of every government action, but this was so over the top that I couldn't quite believe it. Almost every story was about some kind of criticism of the summit or one of Trump's enemies reacting to it. There were a few pro-summit opinion pieces thrown in as well, but zero actual news about the summit and what happened there. Some of that is due to me being late on the draw since the story broke last night, but I am guessing that like most people who work, I wasn't alone in not being able to find an unbiased accounting of what happened. 

I also think that the criticism of the summit is factually incorrect. People are acting shocked that Trump agreed to end military exercises but doing so should have been obvious to even the most uninformed Korea watcher. The North Korean regime sees those exercises as a clear and present danger to their regime and if they were not pulled no deal was likely to have taken place. To argue otherwise shows either an almost complete lack of understanding of the Korean peninsula or is evidence of motivated reasoning. 

As for the video I posted above, I do agree that it is pretty cheesy. But considering the audience it was a good move. Kim Jong Un is like his father in that he has a great love of film and was probably very impressed by the video. It also showed the very clear benefits to Kim personally if he cooperates. He gets to look like a hero and gets massive economic opportunities. I have no doubt that it helped even if the whole thing was a little silly. 

I also think it is important to restate that this was obviously a first step. There was no way we were ever going to come out of the Singapore meeting with every single detail hammered out and every problem solved. That will take months, maybe years, and will be handled in the follow up meetings. This was just an attempt to officially recognize that peace can happen. Sure, it could still fall apart, but we are moving in the right direction.    

I have to point out that Trump really did turn things around. About a year ago the media narrative was that Trump was unhinged and he would lead us into a war with North Korea. Now that the threat of war is at it's lowest level in decades, and Trump is largely responsible for that fate, does he get any credit for it? Of course not, because the media hates him. 

That being said, he really did accomplish something. We were on the path to war as a Nuclear North Korea with missile technology that could hit the United States was completely unacceptable. To the point that the only two options were North Korea giving up their nukes or war. We went with the 1st option because the 2nd was almost too horrible to consider. And it seems to be working out. 

The threat would have been true no matter who the president was but I am guessing that if Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any of the cast of characters on the GOP side were president we would probably be at war with North Korea right now. Only Richard Nixon could go to China and only Trump could go to North Korea. I am guessing that history will look more kindly on Trump than Nixon though. 

A lot of the criticism of this deal is on the fact that it doesn't address North Korea's horrible human rights record. Expecting it to do so was pretty unrealistic. Any discussion of that issue would probably derail the summit and undo the large amount of work done to secure peace. 

Am I ok with that? Not much of a choice. We work with countries that treat their people horribly all the time, so I don't know why we can't do the same with North Korea. And though the government will continue to be extremely harsh, we can do a lot to improve the lives of North Korean citizens by easing sanctions and increasing trade, which is the end goal of this process. North Korea may still be a place where criticizing Kim Jong Un will get you thrown into a labor camp but it will at least be a place where people have enough food to eat and some basic creature comforts the rest of the world takes for granted. I wouldn't want to live in either place but if I had to choose which North Korea to exist in it would be the one with better economics and nutrition. 

Finally, despite all my grumbling about the media, I am very happy that this summit happened and that it worked out well. A war with North Korea would have been devastating and it looks like we have avoided that income for the foreseeable future. Peace won out and that is a really good thing even if the media will never admit it... 

Video: The Trump/Kim handshake.

Now isn't the time to analyze and speculate on if this meeting will work out. Instead I just want to say that I am amazed that President Trump and Kim Jong Un managed to work together. This is a massively historic meeting and one that I am happy has happened. Whatever happens next we tried our best. 

Editor's Note: North Korea Summit

I'm going to be watching the North Korean summit very closely. Both Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump are now in Singapore awaiting the opening over the summit on Tuesday. I plan to cover the summit here and on twitter. I doubt I will be able to do it in real time though.

I personally hope that the summit works out. And I think that is something everyone should be pulling for. I don't care if you hate President Trump, you should support this attempt to avoid a terrible and ugly war. If he and Kim Jong Un can pull it off they both deserve a massive amount of credit. I am excited and anxious at the same time and I think that there is a real chance of this being pulled off. But we won't know for a couple of days. Until then I will be keeping a close eye on everything...

Great to be in Singapore, excitement in the air!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2018

Days after calls for a recount in Iraq, warehouse housing half the ballots burns down.

The warehouse containing half of the election ballots in Iraq burns. Reuters. 

Just days after Iraq's parliament called for a recount of last months elections the warehouse containing half of the ballots has burned down. Reuters. The election results were already in question due to widespread allegations of fraud. Workers were able to save most or all of the ballots, though that hasn't stopped calls for new elections. Iraqi Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi implied the fire was not an accident and said that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. The recount could harm Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a long time foe of the United States and Iranian ally, who's party came in 1st during the election. 

My Comment:

And I thought American elections were messy! This seems like a very obvious attempt either to cover up election fraud or nullify the results of the election. Either way it's clear that the last election was a joke and that there probably should be new elections in Iraq. 

No matter who is responsible, this is a pretty clear attack on Democracy itself. No matter what was going to happen with the recount, none of the results can be trusted as well. Even if the government is right and there weren't any ballots destroyed or damaged, it seems very unlikely that anyone could trust their word about it. There will always be doubt that some ballots were destroyed. And if there was election fraud people won't believe it wasn't planted during the fire. 

So who is responsible? I am not sure but I think it's very clear that whatever happened was due to Iran, indirectly. With Moqtada al-Sadr's party winning the election it was clear that Iraq was going to be on a very different path. 

I certainly think that Moqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers are possibly responsible. They had a lot to gain from having a puppet government in Iraq especially a Shiite one. Iraq would be a proxy state for Iran if al-Sadr's party came into power. This would counter Saudi influences in the region and would secure Iran's supply lines into Syria where they are threatening war with Israel. 

Of course that means that everyone else in the region, including the United States, Israel and the Saudis, have a motive to tamper with the elections as well. I'd like to think that the United States wouldn't do so but that strikes me as naive. My guess is was a local power or even the Iraqi government itself if it wasn't the Shiite militias, but we really can't rule out anyone. There is just too much at stake. 

A history lesson might be in order. Before current government, Iraq was ruled by Shiites and were fairly discriminatory towards Sunni Muslims. This meant when ISIS arrived in Iraq the Sunni Muslims welcomed them with open arms. Trying to avoid that outcome again may have been what motivated an election tampering. 

All that being said, I am guessing that there will be new elections in Iraq. Any recount now will be tainted and I doubt anyone will trust them. The only way to have a government with any kind of respect is to hold new elections.