Nightmare. Man shoots and kills naked intruder who was choking his grandson. When cops showed up they shoot him.

Police vehicles at the scene of the crime. ABC News. 

Police responding to a home intruder call in Colorado shoot and kill man who shot and killed the intruder. ABC News. A naked man broke into the house of Richard "Gary" Black's family. The man began strangling Black's 11 year old grandson and the boy's father and Black tried to save him. Black then drew his firearm and shot the intruder, killing him. Police had been called by a member of the family and when they arrived they shot and killed Black. Black and his grandson were taken to the hospital but Black did not make it. Black was a decorated military veteran who served in Vietnam and a former federal agent. 

My Comment:

What an absolute disaster and the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. Having to go through something like this and surviving only to get shot by the cops that came to help you is horrible. Successfully protecting your family but getting shot and killed for your trouble? Unthinkable. This is about the worst case scenario for both the family and the police. 

It's very obvious that this was a good shoot, as far as Black shooting the intruder goes. If a naked man breaks into your house that should always be a good shoot as far as I am concerned. Not only is a break in good evidence that something bad is going to happen, when the guy is naked it just makes the implications even more clear. And it's completely obvious when a crazy naked guy is choking your young grandson to death (who was in the bathtub, more bad implications) you are good to shoot him dead. I think it is very clear that Black saved his grandson's life since he had to go to the hospital afterwards and given that the intruder was naked he might have saved him from other terrible things as well... 

As for the cops though, they screwed up and screwed up bad. I'm usually on the cops side but it's pretty clear that they did the wrong thing here. Especially since they had the description of the intruder and were alerted to the fact the suspect was naked and what clothing Mr. Black was wearing. Black may have been walking out of the house with a gun in his hand but given the data the cops had they should have at least given him a chance to drop the gun. If he was given that chance and didn't shooting him might have been justified but without information saying that is the case I don't know if this is a good shoot. And if Black had put his gun away and was unarmed? No way the cops should have shot. 

So why did the cops shoot? Perhaps it was the "fog of war" effect. I can see how the cops might have confused the description of Black with the description of the attacker. They could have also just been shocked to see a man with a gun coming out of the house. Keep in mind they actually heard the gunshots that killed the intruder so they might have thought that Black was the shooter. Since it was the middle of the night that could have been a factor as well. Given the scenario I am not surprised that they shot. That's a reason, not an excuse, but man I wouldn't want to be on either side of this situation. It's a nightmare for the cops too. 

How do gun owners protect themselves in this kind of situation? Without more data about what Black did with his gun, it might be pertinent to state the obvious. If he had his gun out after the intruder was down, he should have holstered or cased it. But if he didn't have his gun out? Only thing I can think of is to either get on the ground with your hands away from your gun and pockets or put your hands up until the cops show up, which might not be possible if you think the suspect is still dangerous or might have a friend. In this kind of crazy situation there might not be much to do. 

The whole thing reminds me of a local case that was fairly similar. It was a hostage situation at a motorcycle shop and when one of the hostages escaped with his CCW gun out he got shot by the cops. The suspect in that case got convicted for his death and the cops had a better excuse since he matched the general description of the suspect but even so it was an ugly situation. 

What should happen to the cops in this case? I am not sure. Without more information about if Black was armed when he exited the house I can't say for sure. If he was armed than this is just a tragic case that nobody should probably be punished for. But if he wasn't? The cop(s) should probably lose their jobs and could face civil and criminal consequences as well. Still, it's a hard case all around and the kind of worst case scenario that both cops and armed civilians hate. 

ISIS takes credit for terror attack that killed four tourists, including two Americans, in Tajikistan

The M41 road in Tajikistan. ABC News/Getty. 

ISIS has taken credit for a ramming and stabbing attack that killed four tourists in Tajikistan. ABC News. A group of seven tourists were riding bicycles when a car filled with five attackers rammed them. The attackers then exited their vehicle and stabbed and shot the tourists. ISIS took credit for the attack but local authorities have not ruled out robbery as a possible motive. Two Americans were killed in the attack with a Swiss and Dutch national also killed. Two more tourists were wounded. Four suspects have been arrested by the Tajik government. 

My Comment:

This seems like an obvious terror attack to me. Though it is possible that it wasn't the scenario doesn't make sense as a robbery or run of the mill murder. Random psychos usually don't work in teams and robberies don't do more damage to their car than they would have gotten in their theft. If there was a different motive than these attackers were idiots. Terrorism is the only thing that makes sense. 

Car ramming is a classic sign of ISIS as well. Terrorists have used the tactic to great effect since the Nice attack in France. Other terror groups have adapted the tactic but usually a car ramming attack means Islamic terrorism. It would be very surprising if this was not an attack by ISIS. 

I have to be honest that I don't know too much about Tajikistan. I do know that they have a local ISIS affiliate but I wasn't aware that it was a place that had a lot of tourism. From what I understand they have had a difficult time since the fall of communism and have been trying to promote tourism. This attack will probably not help that effort to say the least. Europe took a big hit in terms of tourism after the series of attacks and right now people looking at vacations in Tajikistan will find coverage of this attack. 

What is really strange about this attack is how it was carried out. Was this just an attack of opportunity or was it planned? If it was just a random attack of opportunity than that is an example of just poor luck all around. How rotten can your luck be if your bike ride just happens to be noticed by a car full of terrorists and they spontaneously decide to attack? Such a random attack is certainly possible. 

But what if it wasn't? Were these tourists specifically targeted? Did the ISIS operatives follow these people on social media or something? How did they know they were foreigners and how did they know they would be on that road on their bikes? The answers to those questions are quite disturbing and makes me think that tourists should be more careful about their social media use while in countries where ISIS is active. Broadcasting your plans and location to the world isn't always a good idea. 

As for ISIS they have really been beaten back. I remember just a year ago these kinds of attacks were so common I could barely keep up with them. Now an attack in a relatively obscure country that only manged to kill four people is the biggest success they have had against western targets in a very long time. During the bad old days of a couple of years ago this attack might not have even rated coverage. 

It just goes to show how critical Syria and Iraq were to ISIS. Without that huge area under their control they can no longer plan major attacks, pay for them with their tax base and stolen loot or produce their highly effective propaganda. Even though this attack was serious it is a clear sign of how far ISIS has fallen. 

Ebola case in Denver?

The Ebola Virus. Nixxphotagraphy/NBC9News.

A man returning from a mission trip from Congo has suddenly fallen ill in Denver and Ebola has not been ruled out. NBC9News. The man was in an area where an Ebola outbreak had happened but had officially been ruled over after 45 days with no new cases. The man fell ill and has been brought into isolation with an abundance of caution. Ebola has not been ruled out but is still possible. 

My Comment:

Probably much ado about nothing but worth monitoring anyways. After the 2014 Ebola outbreak that managed to spread to the United States it's a good idea to keep an eye on potential cases. After all, the cases that we had here were brought over in essentially the same way. From a person returning from helping with an outbreak. 

So is it Ebola? My guess would be no. It's not like there were active Ebola cases running around while this guy was here. He could have been exposed from the natural reservoir or someone that was misdiagnosed but that seems very unlikely. My guess is that he probably caught on of the any number of tropical diseases that can imitate Ebola. Or he just got sick locally.  

Not much else to say with this one, other than to give people a heads up. If it is Ebola than I hope that people are taking adequate precautions. The last thing we need is another outbreak. We dodged a bullet last time and if we screw up this time we could see another one. 

Of course it is extremely lucky that the man ended up in Denver. The hospital he is at is one of the only ones that can effectively care for Ebola patients so that is a good thing. We also have a much better idea of how Ebola spreads and an experimental vaccine. If the unthinkable does happen we are better prepared this time around...

Syrian refugees are beginning to return to Syria from Lebanon.

A child with the refugee convoy waves to the camera. Reuters. 

Syrian refugees who fled to Lebanon are beginning the process of returning home. Reuters. The first wave of 1200 refugees arrived from Lebanon and will return to their homes are areas that the fighting has ended. Lebanon says that they are the first of hundreds of thousands that will return to Syria. Lebanon hosted 1 million refugees, which was a more than a quarter of its entire population. As the fighting has wound down and the regime has taken back much of their territory, people are beginning to return. Russia is working on a plan to bring 1.7 million refugees home back to Syria. 

My Comment:

This is good news for everyone involved. The refugees obviously get to go home, Syria gets more of its people back ,which will be needed for rebuilding, and Lebanon doesn't have to deal with the burden of caring for these people anymore. It's good situation for everyone involved. 

It's also a testament at how effective the government has been lately in fighting the rebels and terrorists left in the country. The regime has taken most of the south away from the rebels and ISIS with all the rebels gone and only a few pockets of ISIS remaining. They accomplished this very quickly and there isn't much indication that the regime is going to slow down soon. Right now the only areas that are under rebel control is Idlib province, which will be the next target in the fighting. When that province falls the war will be essentially over. At least the civil war, who knows what will happen with the Turks and the Kurds? 

The UN says that Syria is still too dangerous for refugees to return. I don't know if I agree with that. It obviously is true where fighting is still going on but in the areas behind the lines life is much safer. Yes there was just a huge ISIS raid, but that was close enough to the front lines that it probably doesn't count. Much of the country is safer than it was even a few months ago. It is still more dangerous than the United States but it is probably safe enough to return as long as you didn't live where the front lines are.

These refugees really do need to go home though. If Syria is going to have any chance at all of recovering from this war they will need as many people to come back as possible. They will need unskilled workers for purposes of labor and they will need skilled workers for everything else. Without those people coming back Syria will be full of people that were either too stupid to or unable to flee. Though they would still have a backbone of people that stayed to fight, it wouldn't be enough. There would be a serious brain and labor drain that they might not be able to recover from. 

The rest of the world needs these refugees to go home as well. I can't imagine the burden these people are on their host nations. For a small country like Lebanon where 1 million refugees showed up, it must have been devastating to feed, house and employ so many people. Every one of those that go home is less of a burden, which means Lebanon can better provide for their own people. That goes for every country housing these refugees, including the ones in Europe. 

One does wonder what those people will find when they return home. Many of their homes will have been damaged, looted or destroyed in the fighting. And many of their relatives will be either dead, fellow refugees housed who knows where or fleeing from the regime. It will be a tough life but I am guessing it will be better than sitting in a refugee camp. 

Trying to build a country that has torn itself apart in a brutal civil war is not going to be a easy or fun task. But it is a task of purpose and one that has better rewards than sitting on welfare in some European country that probably won't accept you anyways. For those that can return doing so is the right thing to do. 

U.S. not pursuing regime change in Iran according to Jim Mattis.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis testifies before congress. Reuters.

The United States is not pursuing regime change or collapse in Iran according to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. Reuters. Mattis' statement came after days of back and forth between President Donald Trump and Iranian officials on social media. A report from Australia said that the United States was considering regime change but Mattis dismissed that report as "fiction". Secretary Mattis said that the United States is trying to reign in Iran's nuclear program and counteract Iran's proxy wars in Syria and Yemen but had no plans to overthrow the regime. 

My Comment:

Despite the media hysteria on the issue I had no doubt that this was going to be the outcome of the saber rattling between Iran and the United States. Remember, during the President's first year, Trump was doing the exact same thing with North Korea. Fast forward to today and they are returning fallen soldiers from the Korean War and making some progress with giving up their nukes. 

I doubt that President Trump wants war with Iran, though there is certainly a case to be made for doing so. They are pursuing weapons of mass destruction after all, but that's not the worst of it. They are also launching major proxy wars in both Syria and Yemen which has greatly destabilized the region. They are also using Yemen as a playground to test new weapons, including very dangerous ballistic missiles and anti-air weapons. Plus they support terror groups like Hezbollah which are capable of hitting the United States. And I have to mention they threaten Israel which is a major US ally in the region. 

All that being said, I think it's very clear that Trump wants a diplomatic solution. His entire life is about making deals and he has already pulled one off with North Korea. He may threaten war but he has shown signs of desperately wanting to avoid it, like he did with his limited strikes in Syria. I think he thinks he can get a better deal with Iran than the Obama deal he just pulled off from and using saber rattling as a way to get what he wants. 

After all, Iran is in huge economic trouble right now. Sanctions are starting to bite and they are dealing with quite a bit of economic inflation. It's not Venezuela level bad right now, but if things continue it could end up that way. They are having riots and disorder because they can't even afford to give their people clean water in the south, and they are at risk of falling apart if sanctions aren't lifted. 

Trump is hoping that the combination of the stick of sanctions can be combined with the carrot of economic opportunity can convince Iran to come to the table. Doing so would be the best for the Iranian regime which is economically crippled and is starting to bleed themselves dry in Syria and Yemen. If they are rational they will take the deal. 

But is Iran rational? I am not so sure. They are religious fanatics and have religious reasons to not go along with Trump. I think they are also very angry that Trump pulled out of their sweetheart deal with Obama that didn't really hurt them or stop them from what they wanted to do. There is a chance they will call Trump's bluff. But I don't think it is a major one. In the end I see this situation being resolved the same way the North Korea one was.

I do have to mention that I knew that the Australian report was likely fake news. For one thing it was relying on anonymous sources. And those sources were not even from the American government, but the Australian one! My guess is some minor analyst with some Australian agency with a journalist buddy sold his pet theory to them and then the news published it like it was a fact. Once again, it's garbage and has been proven to be wrong, just like so many other news stories.

Saudi Arabia suspends oil shipments through Red Sea after Yemeni Houthi rebels attack an oil tanker.

The Yemeni port of Aden. NBC News/AFP.

Saudi Arabia has suspended oil shipments through the Red Sea after Yemeni Houthi rebels have attacked an oil tanker. NBC News. The Houthi rebels attacked two oil tankers and managed to damage one of them. The Red Sea is one of the most oil corridors in the world and is only 12 miles wide. But it is within range of Houthi rebels in Yemen which could potentially sink of the oil tankers. 4.8 billion barrels of oil and petroleum products pass through the Red Sea each day. The closure has already caused oil prices to spike. 

 My Comment:

A dangerous situation in Yemen has gotten more dangerous. In the past nobody really cared all that much about the Yemeni conflict, despite the use of ballistic missiles, multiple terror groups and horrible human suffering, because it did not effect the outside world. With the Houthis attacking oil tankers in the Red Sea that has changed. 

Indeed, it is pretty funny to see this on NBC News as their cable news affiliate MSNBC has devoted no news to the Yemen conflict for a year despite giving the Stormy Daniels non story 455 segments. It seems very clear that nobody seems to care about the Yemen war despite how important it has been.   

This is bad news for the world economy. Europe especially is vulnerable to disruptions of Middle Eastern oil and that can damage their economy very quickly. The United States is not so vulnerable and even can benefit because we are now energy independent due to fracking and we even export oil now. Still, the greater economy will be hurt by any disruption of oil shipping in the Red Sea. If this situation goes on for much longer we could all see higher prices at the pump and everything that relies on transport. 

The Houthi rebels have once again shown to be more sophisticated than any other rebel group in recent memory. They have launched ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia, have heavy anti-air weapons and now are cable of hitting ships in the Red Sea. They are a huge threat to everyone in the area that they have a problem with, which is almost anyone. 

This is due to Iran of course. Iran is providing weapons, training and support to those Houthi rebels, largely as a proxy war between them and Saudi Arabia. That situation seems to be spiraling out of control with now international trade being threatened. I fear that there may be a wider war now... 

Major ISIS attacks in Syria kill more than 200 people.

A vehicle destroyed in the fighting. BBC/AFP

A major ISIS raid in the city of Suweida in southwest Syria has killed more than 200 people. BBC. ISIS fighters launched multiple suicide bombers and raided homes, killing the occupants. It was the deadliest day of the war for the city since the start of the war in 2011. Syrian soldiers were able to secure the city and drive the ISIS militants out. ISIS has largely been removed from Syria with only a small pocket in the southwest and east still under ISIS control. Syria, along with their Russian allies, have begun to focus on clearing out the southwestern pocket of ISIS control. 

My Comment:

With the defeat of Syrian rebels in the southwest corner of Syria the fighting between ISIS and the government was inevitable. The rebels were working as a buffer between two sides and with the last rebels fleeing to the north there is nobody left to fight but ISIS. 

This was a major attack and it shows that even though ISIS has been greatly reduced, it is still capable of offensive operations. They were taking advantage of the chaos and disorder that has followed the Deraa offensive. Though there weren't able to take Suweida they did manage to kill a lot of people and inflict quite a bit of damage. This was a fairly sophisticated attack even if it did fail to take and hold any territory. 

This was a pretty predictable outcome from Syria's offensive in Deraa. One of the things they did during that offensive is withdraw troops from the Swadia Desert region which is to the east of the city. ISIS was able to use that to their advantage. 

It doesn't appear that this was ISIS's affiliate that controls the tri-border region of Syria, Jordan and Israel. Instead this was one of the last holdouts of core ISIS that remain in the center of the country. ISIS has been taken out just about everywhere else but a few holdouts remain. 

It seems pretty clear that this raid is just a blip in the radar though. ISIS is on the run globally and there is basically no chance of them returning to prominence. That is especially true in Syria. With the rebels almost completely defeated, the Syrian regime can now focus on clearing out what is left of ISIS. 

I am guessing that this is going to be one of the only ISIS offensives left during the war. They are mostly a spent force, even though this attack was fairly sophisticated. It still failed though and the ability of ISIS to take and hold territory is almost completely gone. 

The only hope that ISIS has is for a major war to break out between the regional powers. If, for example, Syria and Turkey go to war, which they might, ISIS might make a comeback. Even if that happens though I doubt ISIS will be able to rise to the heights they once held. The war against them in Syria is almost over... 

Bodycam video shows the Trader Joe's shootout.

Bodycam and cruiser video has been released from last Saturday's police shootout and hostage taking at a Trader Joe's in Los Angeles California. That incident ended with the hostage taker in custody and an innocent civilian getting caught in the crossfire. The civilian, Melyda Corado, was a manager at the Trader Joe's and was killed by a police bullet. ABC News has more information on the video.

What's my take on this? I think it is pretty obviously a justified shooting since the attacker in the case had been shooting at cops throughout the video. Their lives and the lives of the general public were in danger. He was an absolute menace and had to be stopped. It's a tragedy that someone died but I don't think the cops should be held legally responsible for their actions. 

That being said, I am not so sure that they should have opened fire right away. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is to be aware of your target and what is behind it. And I don't think the officers did that in this case. Though shooting happens very quickly you could see a lot of people behind where the suspect was and presumably more were inside of the store. There was a decent chance of someone getting hit and that is exactly what happened. 

Of course on the other side I think that there is an argument to be made that the suspect was so dangerous that he had to be stopped even if there was a chance of a civilian getting caught in the crossfire. He was actively trying to murder two police officer and he too wasn't careful about who else was behind his targets. He also murdered his grandmother and kidnapped and shot a teenager and was a general menace. Shooting him after all that was not only justified, it was the right thing to do. Doing it in a way that ended up with a dead civilian might not change anything. 

And there is the argument that if the officers hadn't shot back one or both of them could have been killed, along with innocent civlians and the kidnapped teenager. The suspect might have even escaped and continued his crime spree, so it's not like not shooting would have been consequence free.  

The whole situation just goes to show how gray these use of force situations can be. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the cops involved should have held back or do exactly what they did. Either way, I am glad that it wasn't me in that position because in the heat of the moment I don't know which way I would have gone. 

US appeals court rules 2nd amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms.

A man open carrying in Michigan. LA Times/AP.

The US 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled that the 2nd amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms. LA Times. In a 2-1 ruling the court said that the state of Hawaii violated the 2nd amendment rights of a citizen there who was denied a permit to open carry a firearm. This reversed a lower court ruling that said the right to keep and bear arms only applied in the home. The case took the opposite conclusion on a concealed carry ban in California, which ruled there was no right to conceal carry a firearm. With opposing rulings on close issues the Supreme Court would usually intervene but the court has been reluctant to rule on gun rights issues for some time now.

EDIT: The ruling can be found here.

My Comment:

A huge win for gun rights. Assuming this doesn't get reversed at the Supreme Court, this ruling has pretty much destroyed the laws in any state that doesn't have open carry. The Supreme Court could always reverse the ruling but given they never take gun rights cases these days anyways and the current makeup of the court, I doubt that would happen. And after Kavanaugh gets confirmed he will likely be the vote needed to confirm the ruling anyways. More likely though, the court will just let it stand. 

It does sound that the case will continue to allow permits to be required to carry but it sounds like it will be on a shall issue basis, not may issue. This means that anyone can get a permit to open carry assuming the state has a reason to deny the permit. This isn't great but it is a huge improvement of the current system where many states ban open carrying completely. It's hard to tell how this will play out though because the reports I have read have had very little about the implications of this ruling. 

Oddly, we now have conflicting rulings on both open and concealed carry. The 9th circuit court has said that you have a right to open carry but no right to conceal carry. That makes zero sense to me because if everyone is openly carrying firearms anyways, what is the point in banning concealed carry? I mean if everyone is walking around with a pistol on their hip or a rifle slung on their back, what's the reasoning of banning it concealed? I am guessing that the old ruling on conceal carry is going to go away. 

I also have to say that I find it hilarious that this is the way the court ruled. Among gun rights advocates concealed carry is much more popular that open carry. Generally speaking open carry advocates are seen as extremists that give other gun rights owners a bad name for wanting something "unrealistic". It seems as though the shoe is on the other foot now. 

I also have to say that all 50 states now have some process for concealed carry. Some of the "may issue" states are defacto bans but you would think that with CCW being more popular the court would have ruled in favor of it. 42 states require licencing for CCW with 8 requiring nothing, while open carry is allowed without permits in 31 states with 15 states requiring a licence and the rest having a ban. With that being the case you would think that CCW would have won out but here we are I guess. 

The situation is pretty much now what we have in my state of Wisconsin. I don't have a CCW permit so I can't conceal carry. However I have an absolute right to carry a gun openly without any permit at all. That just seems dumb but it's been the status quo in Wisconsin since CCW was legalized here in 2011. Before then CCW was illegal but open carry was fine, though you would get a lot of attention from the police. 

I am not sure how exactly this will play out. There are a lot of state laws that will have to be adjusted in light of this ruling and it may have to go to the Supreme Court. For the time being I wouldn't open carry in a state that still has bans on it, even if those bans are likely to go away. 

The most shocking thing about this is that the ruling came from the 9th Circuit Court. The 9th is the most liberal in the nation and often rules against conservative issues, sometimes purely out of spite without regard to the law. This ruling involved a few of the Republicans on that court but it is still a shocking descion coming from them. 

Two dead and a dozen wounded in a mass shooting in Toronto Canada.

Police near the sign of the shooting. ABC News. 

Two people are dead and a dozen have been wounded in a mass shooting in Canada. ABC News. The attack occurred in Toronto's Greektown neighborhood and ended as the suspect was shot by the police. The 29 year old man shot 14 people, including a nine year old girl. No motive has been released but police suspect that it was not a random killing. No links to terrorism have been found so far but has also not been ruled out. The attacker used a handgun in the attack. 

My evening was nice until I heard shooting right out of my place on the danforth. So scary!! The gun violence in Toronto is crazy. pic.twitter.com/eNHLlUlp6r

— n💫 (@nsxoxoii) July 23, 2018

My Comment:

Very little information to go on in this attack, with local Canadian sources not having much other info either. The CBC didn't have any more information than the ABC report so it seems like nobody knows much right now. The motive is a total mystery and even things like the condition of the survivors have not been released.

With so little to go on, I won't speculate too much on motive. Of course the first thing you think of is terrorism but you would think that this many hours after the attack someone would have found proof of that. Still, we can't rule it out and I should point out that Canada has occasionally withheld motives for these kinds of attacks. Most notably the motive for the Toronto van attack this spring has never been released, other than a nonsensical twitter post we still don't know why he did what he did. Of course motive isn't always the most important thing in these kinds of situations. Finding out if this is terrorism is important, as the threat could be continuing, but other than that it's a moot point.

This attacker seems to have been stopped pretty quickly by police. He didn't rack up a major body count, fortunately, because the response time was pretty good. Had he not met resistance he probably would have been able to kill more people. Once again, it took a good guy with a gun to take this person down. Good work by the Toronto police taking him out.

His choice of target is odd to say the least. He seems to have targeted random restaurants and pedestrians and didn't seem to have a specific target in mind. This makes me think that this is less likely to be a terror plot and instead is likely some guy deciding to shoot random people. As far as targets go it was a pretty poor choice. Many people were able to escape from this shooter which wouldn't have happened if he had chosen a different target.

I do have to say that either this guy had some military or police training or he spent a lot of time at the gun range because he was fairly accurate with his fire. Though the clip I have seen could be misleading, he didn't seem very close to his victims and was using a full size handgun to shoot at them, which is more difficult that people realize. He seemed confident with his weapon and looked like he knew what he was doing, though with the caveat that a short clip might not be enough to judge.

I am sure this attack will contribute to the gun control debate in Canada. Canada already has strict laws in place for handguns and I bet that their gun control politicians will push new laws in the wake of this attack. I doubt they will do anything at all to prevent these kinds of attacks, as this attacker was able to get a gun with the current laws and people in other countries have no problem getting guns even under stricter laws, but that is what happens in the wake of mass shootings...

My thoughts on the James Gunn scandal, which now extends beyond just him.

James Gunn. Mingle Media TV.

As you may know James Gunn, director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, has been fired by Disney after tweets surfaced where Gunn joked about child abuse and pedophilia. From what I understand 4chan's /pol/ and /tv/ uncovered the tweets and sent them to right wing pundit and e-celeb Mike Cernovich. Once those tweets reached a wider audience, Disney ended up firing Gunn.

This is a huge deal since Gunn was directing the Guardian of the Galaxy films which have basically printed money for Disney. With Marvel being the flagship of Disney right now and their Star Wars property floundering, it's almost insane for them to put Gunn out to pasture. It just goes to show how serious the allegations are being taken. 

Gunn, it appears is just the beginning. Right now comedians Sarah Silverman and Michael Ian Black are being attacked for similar statements on social media. Dan Harmon, one of the creators of Adult Swim's hit cartoon Rick and Morty has also been exposed after a video skit was rediscovered where he simulated sexually attacking a baby. Due to the rules of my blog host I won't be linking to any of this but sources should be easy to find if you google them. None of these people have faced any consequences so far but the night is still young. 

What do I think about this? I have conflicted feelings. One the one hand, the civil libertarian in my doesn't want people getting fired for jokes, even jokes in absolutely terrible taste. Even what Dan Harmon did should be protected speech despite how utterly disgusting it was. I do think it would be hypocritical of me to defend Rosanne for what she tweeted and then not defend these people as well. I don't like call out culture or internet shamming mobs getting people fired. It's a disturbing trend and not one I want to continue. 

On the other hand, this not the hill I want to die on. I didn't really find any of what these people said to be funny at all. Dan Harmon's "skit" was especially disgusting to the point where I couldn't watch it and I say that as a person that isn't disgusted by much. Sure they may have a right to say what they want but that doesn't mean we have to put up with it. 

The fact that these people are all knee deep in Hollywood is probably a big part of it. A joke is funny because you know it isn't true. I'm not entirely sure that these Hollywood types are actually joking. Though I don't buy all the conspiracy theories about elite pedo rings I do think that there probably is an undercurrent of child abuse in Hollywood and saying so isn't controversial. Indeed, I would be shocked if there weren't a large number of child abusers working in Hollywood right now. 

After all, we just went through #MeToo where a bunch of Hollywood celebrities came out about sexual abuse. Some of those people, most notably Kevin Spacey, were accused of hurting children. It would not be any surprise at all if we found out that Gunn, Silverman, Black and/or Harmon actually are pedophiles. At this point a celebrity joking about this kind of thing elicits the same kind of red flags that a Catholic priest joking about it would. 

Still, it's pretty clear that the people going after these celebs are not doing so in good faith. After all, this witch hunt began on 4chan, which is one of the last places on the internet that should ever be moralizing. This is way more about taking down liberals than taking down pedophiles, even if they are one and the same. 

That being said, witch hunts aren't so bad when there are actual witches running around. I think Hollywood is a big enough of a cesspool that these people probably should face an investigation. Perhaps not a legal one, not yet at least, but if normal people want to dig into their internet history that it is probably justified. I am guessing, when it comes to Hollywood, they will find the witches they are looking for. 

I do have to say that I am feeling more than a little schadenfreude about this. These people are exclusively liberal and many of them have been knee deep into the culture wars. Indeed, some of them were involved in doing similar things to conservatives that are happening to them now. They participating in some of the same internet shaming tactics that they are falling to now. To see them hoisted by their own petard is satisfying despite the underlying danger of this becoming the new norm. 

Though I would prefer a world where people were only fired for actual crimes and not hounded on social media, I do have to say that I knew this was going to happen. I have long said that social shaming is a demon, once called up, will turn on its masters. It obviously began before this but now it is going after Hollywood itself... 

Knife attack in Germany wounds 10 to 14 people.

The bus that was the site of the attack. BBC/AFP.

A knife attack on a bus in Germany has wounded between 10 and 14 people. BBC. A 34 year old man was overpowered at the scene and taken into custody. He was armed with a knife and his backpack had some kind of accelerant in it that did not go off. Police did not indicate if the man had any connection to terror organizations or was politically radicalized. 

My Comment:

Very little information in this case. You would think that a man stabbing a dozen people on a bus would get more coverage than this but I guess that isn't how things work anymore. There also hasn't been much information on why he committed this crime either. 

Of course given how censorious the German government is, there is a decent chance that we won't find out the motive in this case. If there was a religious motive for this attack we probably won't hear about it for some time. Germany likes to downplay when an Islamic attack happens. 

That doesn't mean that this was a terror attack. People do go nuts occasionally and attack large numbers of people. Given how common mass stabbings are in Europe right now it isn't surprising that someone who isn't motivated by religious zeal could commit one of these attacks. If they are doing so for attention, mimicking a terror attack is a good way to do it.  

The BBC report said that this attack was committed by a 34 year old German citizen. That doesn't mean much. The attacker could certainly still be a radical Muslim. Indeed, I have long said that 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants, who are now citizens, can be a threat. That has been the pattern here in the United States and it would not be a surprise if it happened in Germany. 

What is surprising is that nobody was killed in this case. Mass stabbings can have a very high body count, just look at China, but in this case it didn't happen. I think the x-factor is the quick response time here. The police were able to capture this attacker before he had time to finish anyone off. 

It was surprising that the man was taken alive. That might be a difference in US and German policing. A man armed with a knife currently stabbing people would likely get shot in the United States. Less than lethal force might be employed instead but there is very little chance that US officers would try and overpower an armed man like that. 

FBI Director says China is the most dangerous and pervasive espionage threat.

FBI Director Chris Wray. Business Insider/Aspen Security Forum. 

FBI Director Chris Wray says China, not Russia, is the most pervasive and dangerous espionage threat to the United States. Business Insider. Wray, when asked about if China is a foe said, "I think China, from a counterintelligence perspective, in many ways represents the broadest, most challenging, most significant threat we face as a country".

 China is using traditional and non-traditional methods along with economic espionage as well. Wray said there are active economic espionage investigation in all 50 states. The espionage is much more pervasive than Russia's limited attacks and show a larger focus on quick results while China is acting more strategically.  

My Comment:

FBI Director Wray's comments have been widely talked about in the media but his comments on China have flown under the radar. It's fairly obvious why. These statements tend to undermine the Russia narrative that the media is focusing on (for this week at least). Instead of Russia being an existential threat they are paying second fiddle to China. 

China's threat has been well known for a long time. The Business Insider article detailed how Australia has been completely infiltrated and was effecting politics at all levels. Australia stepped up and passed anti-China laws but for the American media Russia is the bigger threat. Similar things are happening in America as well. 

To his credit President Trump has often talked about China's threat in terms of economic espionage. He has often called them out for stealing our innovations and attacking our institutions. This threat goes beyond just spying on our companies, but on our colleges and government institutions as well.

But it's not just economic espionage. More traditional espionage is happening as well. Many of China's military developments are stolen from the United States. There is a widely held belief that China's fighter Shenyang J-31 is a copy of the F-35. 

Of course neither of those things make the headlines like election interference does. Supposedly the couple of twitter accounts and facebook adds that Russia bought are the end of the world, but did China do something similar? Well nobody is talking about that possibility. I have been saying that what Russia did probably wasn't unique as many other countries, including China, have done the same thing. 

But it is possible that China is responsible for more than we realize. It is very possible that they were the ones that got John Podesta's e-mails and released them. And it is very possible that they have attempted the same kind of election interference that Russia has been accused of. My guess is that they did not favor President Trump though as he was very obviously anti-China.

Without a government investigation into what China did in 2016 or a media that is willing to investigate, the general public will never know what they did. My guess is that they probably did things on a similar level to what Russia did, which means not much at all. Indeed, it's possible that China and Russia canceled each other out so the whole thing is a moot issue.That being said, I do think the hypocrisy here is pretty ridiculous. I think there is a very good chance that China has done as much or more than Russia but we will never hear about it. 

No matter what though I think that foreign interference is the last thing we need to be worried about in our elections. Much more important is voter integrity. We need better options to protect our elections to make sure that people that are not allowed to vote can not do so. A few adds or twitter accounts are nothing compared to someone illegally voting... 

ISIS and the Taliban are now openly fighting each other in Afghanistan.

Taliban fighters in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Newsweek/AFP/Getty. 

ISIS and Taliban fighters are now openly fighting each other in Afghanistan. Newsweek. ISIS fighters attacked a high ranking Taliban leader in Sar-e-Pul, killing 15 people. The two attackers also wounded five people in the attack. ISIS in Afghanistan is mostly centered in the east of the country but recently they have been challenging Taliban fighters in the north. It is unclear how many fighters ISIS has in Afghanistan as many fighters defect between ISIS and the Taliban. Both groups are also targeting the government and civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

My Comment:

This isn't an entirely new development as ISIS and the Taliban have been fighting since ISIS moved into Afghanistan. Though both groups are radical Islamists they still have differences. Indeed, ISIS is even more brutal and evil than the Taliban and the Taliban think they go to far. They have had skirmishes in the past but until they have mostly stayed out of each others way. 

Why is that changing now? I think it is probably desperation on the part of ISIS. Globally ISIS has been defeated with most of their holdings in the Middle East have been taken from them. They are a shadow of what they used to be and are no longer the threat they used to be. 

So why attack the Taliban? Because that's about all they can attack. Afghanistan and Pakistan are two of the only countries left where they have significant forces. They consider the Taliban to be infidels, yes, but it's not really about that. It's about getting into the headlines and they know that attacking the Taliban does that. They can't really attack anyone else, other than civilians and the Afghan government, so they attack the Taliban. They desperately need a new headquarters to replace their former holdings in Syria, Iraq and Libya. 

The Taliban may also want to crush ISIS for their own reasons. The Taliban view ISIS as a threat and a group that could derail their war against the Afghan government. They also want to keep the loyalty of the Afghan civilians and understand that protecting them from ISIS can win hearts and minds. 

Of course the biggest winner from this is the Afghan government. The war is not going well as the last few years have seen them suffer unsustainable casualties and they have lost a decent amount of territory to the Taliban and ISIS as well. Indeed, we had to give them some support to prevent the government from collapsing. 

If the Taliban/ISIS war continues there is a chance both sides could cripple each other enough that the Afghan government could take over the country. I don't really see that happening though. ISIS in Afghanistan is too weak to really destroy the Taliban and even if they did that wouldn't solve the Afghan's problem with competence and corruption. Still, this is a positive development.

Las Vegas police officer in high speed pursuit of two murder suspects shoots through his own windshield to try and stop them.

The above video shows a Las Vegas police officer engaged with a shootout with two murder suspects. Local news media has a more detailed report, but I will go through the basics. Police were responding to a shooting at a car wash where a man was killed. The officers involved spotted the SUV being driven by the suspect and an accomplice and began a high speed pursuit. The suspects opened fired at the officers during the pursuit and eventually the officer responded by firing his handgun through his windshield. The car then crashed into a school and the officer continued to fire on the driver while another cop shot and killed the other suspect with a shotgun. The driver, Rene Nunez, was wounded and taken to the hospital while the passenger, Fidel Miranda, was killed.  

It's pretty compelling footage and is certainly not something we see everyday. The first question everyone has was if the shooting was justified. Considering that the suspects were firing at the cop for a couple of minutes at least I think he was totally justified in attacking the suspect. Not only was the cop's life at risk, the suspects were putting the lives of his fellow officers and the general public at risk as well. The fact that the rear window of the truck was shot out before the officer even opened fire it was very clear that he was justified in using force. 

But was shooting through his windshield the right move? That's the great debate right now among the police and gun enthusiast communities. Everyone wants to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking, including me. As it stands right now it seemed to have turned out pretty ok. It seems pretty clear that the gunfire is what caused the suspects to crash. I don't know if the driver was hit or if he was just afraid of the gunfire and lost control but either way he crashed shortly after. 

But through the windshield? I think I understand why the officer did it. It seemed very clear that he was right handed and didn't feel comfortable shooting with his off hand. It also seems clear that he couldn't use the sights if he had shot out of his open driver side window. The officer even uses both hands during the engagement to get more accurate fire. Doing so greatly increased his chances of hitting the suspect and not hitting any innocent bystanders. Wildly shooting out through his door window with his off hand would likely not have hit the suspects and might put innocent people at risk. 

The downside for doing so is that hitting the glass probably changed the bullet's velocity and accuracy. I am guessing the initial bullets didn't hurt anything. As more of the window got shot away though it probably didn't effect as much. The other downside is the obvious danger of broken glass and bullet fragments potentially injuring the officer. That didn't happen in this case but it is possible. Plus the broken glass reduced visibility. 

Still, I think it was more than worth the risk. The suspects were pretty out of control and had already killed one person and had tried to kill more. They needed to be stopped as soon as possible. The downsides of shooting through the glass more than mitigated by the fact that if those suspects escaped they probably would have killed someone. Plus the above mentioned accuracy boost that shooting down the sights gave him probably outweighed any of the downsides. 

The rest of the engagement was pretty textbook. The cop had a little difficulty reloading, understandable under the circumstances, and then opened fire again. He called out the passenger to his fellow cop with the shotgun and ran to cover. Overall, it was a good engagement for this cop. Well as good as having to be in a shootout can go. If it had been me I would have been proud to have it go this way. 

Full video: Trump and Putin's press conference.

The above video is President Trump and President Putin's joint conference in Helsinki Finland. I don't usually link to Vox, but they also have a transcript up for the meeting. Other sources were behind a paywall so Vox was the best of a bad bunch out of limited options. 

It was extremely difficult to get any information about this meeting at all that wasn't a spin job or opinion piece with commentary. There were very little stories out there that just outlined what Trump and Putin said, and not what the blue check-mark brigade on Twitter had to say about it.  In an effort to improve that situation I'm not going to offer any of my own commentary this time. I implore people to either watch the above video or read the transcript linked above. Make up your own minds. 

Amazing footage shows CH-47 Chinook crew rescuing a man from the summit of Mt. Hood.

The CH-47 as the man is being rescued. Warzone/The Drive.

The Oregon National Guard deployed a CH-47 Chinook to rescue a suicidal man who had climbed Mt. Hood. War Zone/The Drive. The man called 911 and said that he had taken pills while climbing Mt. Hood. A six man rescue team climbed Mt. Hood to rescue him but could not get him back down due to unsafe conditions. A Chinook was brought in to rescue and initially landed at the summit. For unknown reasons they did not perform the rescue there and decided to use a "pinnacle landing" where the chopper balances on it's rear wheels. 

My Comment:

First, a pair of videos. This one shows the uncut footage of the rescue...

The second one is a local news report that has interviews with some of the rescuers...

This is some pretty obvious high skill being displayed by the pilots of the Chinook. Though the pinnacle landing is a fairly common maneuver for Chinooks but to see it is pretty impressive. Those pilots must have had nerves of steel to see their rear rotor so close to the mountain like that. 

I do have to wonder why on earth the man being rescued did what he did. Suicide attempts have always been a mystery for me anyways, but there have to be better ways to kill yourself than climbing a huge mountain and then swallowing pills. Perhaps this guy just wanted some help or something? 

Either way, this rescue operation was a textbook one and all the rescuers involved deserve our respect and admiration. 

Massive bombing in Pakistan kills 130 people claimed by ISIS.

Supporters pray after a bombing killed 130 people. Reuters. 

A massive bombing in Pakistan has killed 130 people and has been claimed by ISIS, bringing fears of violence during Pakistan's election. Reuters. The bombing happened at a rally for the Baluchistan Awami Party (BAP) and continues a wave of violence at political rallies in Pakistan in advance of the July 25 general election. A second bombing, this one claimed by the Taliban struck the Awami National Party (ANP) killed 20 people. Though Pakistan has reduced the amount of violence due to an offensive in the border region that cleared out many militants they still have to worry about cross border attacks from Afghanistan. 

My Comment:

Sad news out of Pakistan and one that puts things in perspective. As bad as our elections were here in this country in 2016 at least we never had anything like this. I am worried about it happening here as political rallies are a very rich target for terrorism. Though we had some minor skirmishes at our political rallies at least nobody has been blown up. 

This is an attack on Pakistan's democracy. I don't really know anything about the political parties involved and I doubt either ISIS or the Taliban care. Targeting these political rallies probably isn't about any party in particular, but just taking advantage of all those people packed together. The main point was killing a large number of people very quickly with the damage to Pakistan's elections just a bonus. 

Pakistan is in the unenviable situation of having dueling terror organizations. Both the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS are active in Pakistan and I can't help but to think that this ISIS attack might have been an attempt to upstage the Taliban attack. If that was their goal it seems they have succeeded. 

This attack has been getting next to zero attention in the western media despite the fact that more than 130 people died. I know Trump is overseas in the UK right now but you would think that one of the most deadly terror attacks to have happened in 2018 would get more coverage. It just shows where the media's priorities are. 

I also think it is significant that this was an ISIS claimed attack. There is a small chance that some other terror group actually committed the attack, with the Taliban being the most obvious, but I tend to believe this claim of responsibility. 

Why? Because Pakistan is one of the few places left in the world that is easy for ISIS to strike. Though ISIS has been driven out of some of their strongholds in Afghanistan, they still control territory there. It's one of the only places in the world where that is still true and it is trivial for them to cross the border into Pakistan. We might be seeing in Pakistan some of the last gasps of the traditional ISIS organization... 

Editor's note.

Just an FYI, I have had a pretty busy weekend. My phone was dying so I had to replace it, plus I had some family stuff going on as well. It's been good so far but I haven't had much time for blogging. If I find something to write about tonight I might have a post up. Seems like a pretty slow news weekend though.

A sporting goods store manager bravely tackled a man stealing a gun. Now he has been fired.

Dean Crouch and his family. Fox News/Ryan Hobbs

A manager at a sporting goods store was fired after an incident where he tackled a man stealing a gun. Fox News. Dean Crouch, a 32 year old from Tallahassee, was fired by Academy Sports for breaking store policy. The suspect, Jason White was looking at a .40 caliber Glock but ran off with it along with two magazines and ammo. Crouch tackled White and prevented him from leaving until police showed up and arrested the man. White had also stolen weapons from two pawn shops the same day. 

CBS reports that White bragged about the theft and said he would steal again after getting out. He also said he planned on shooting someone and was going to "make the news".

My Comment:

Fairly disgusting story out of Tallahassee. It is very clear that Jason White was an extremely dangerous man and one that may have killed someone. It's even possible that he was going to attempt a mass shooting. He could have killed quite a few people with the weapons he stole. He claims he needed the gun in self defense but I don't believe his story. 

Thankfully that didn't happen due to the actions of Dean Crouch. He went above and beyond the duty to tackle this man and by doing so he protected his community. Tackling a man with a gun is always brave thing to do even if this gun (and accompanying magazines) weren't loaded. Doing what he did probably saved someone's life or at the very least prevented an attempted murder. 

So how does the company repay Crouch? By firing him. This is a man with two small kids and needs his job to support them. Sure, they have a policy that nobody can touch a customer but my God man, shouldn't there be an exception for self defense or defense of others? I know a lawsuit from people like Jason White is possible but there is something called doing the right thing and they did not do it here. This is a huge PR nightmare for Academy Sport. 

If there is any good news from this story it is the fact that people seem to be rallying around the Crouch family. He is getting a lot of support and job offers and has an interview at Bass Pro Shops. It sounds like things are going to work out for him just fine but the whole situation is infuriating.  

As for Jason White, it's fairly stupid that he is out of jail on bail. After his comments saying he would do it again, you would think that bail would have been revoked. He seems like a clear threat to the community and someone that should be in jail. 

He also seems like kind of an idiot. He had already pulled off this little stunt twice already at local pawn shops and gotten away with it. If he had guns why did he need a third? I guess he could have used his gun at the Academy Sports to rob them but at that point he might have been shot instead of tackled. All things considered that might have been a better outcome... 

Syria has taken Deraa, the birthplace of the Syrian Civil War.

The Syrian flag flies over Deraa. BBC/AFP.

Syrian forces have taken most of Deraa, one of the last rebel strongholds and the birthplace of the Syrian Civil War. BBC. The remaining rebels in the city have agreed to surrender and will be allowed to flee to the north. Deraa's province has been largely taken by the Syrians after a major offensive was launched last month. Thousands of refugees have returned home after last week's surrender of the Syrian rebels. Deraa is a critical city due to it's location near the border of Jordan and the fact that the Arab Spring protests that eventually morphed into the civil war. With Deraa in government hands and most of the rebels fleeing the only remaining threat is ISIS in the border area near the Golan Heights. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update to last weeks post about Syria. I don't have a whole lot to add to this other than the fact that it seems very clear that this deal is working out for the Syrians. The rebels have given up Deraa, which was their most important outpost in the south. It is the equivalent of ISIS losing control of Dabiq, which had spiritual and political importance that goes far beyond that actual strategic importance of the city. To say this is a massive blow to the rebels is an understatement. 

As far as I am concerned the Syrian Civil War is all but over. The rebels have lost and lost hard and there is no chance of them ever making a comeback baring some kind of unprecedented disaster. Of course that doesn't mean the fighting will end. Rebels and al-Nusra still control Idlib province, Turkey controls some of the border area and the Kurds still control about 1/4 of the country in the north. As long as those things are true the war won't be completely over. But the idea that the rebels would ever overthrow Bashar al-Assad is now nothing but a pipe dream. 

It seems as though Syria is already moving to their next objective and that is the ISIS sliver of control near the Jordan/Israel border area near the Golan Heights. From what I understand that group of ISIS isn't core ISIS but one of their affiliates. 

Things don't look good for this holdout group of ISIS. They are surrounded by hostile forces with the armies of Jordan and Israel blocking them in and now the full force of the Syrian and Russian armies. It's going to be a classic hammer and anvil situation and one that these ISIS fighters have no way out of. My guess is that their only goal will to be to take as many of the Syrians and Russians with them before they go... 

Despite Democratic push, most US voters oppose abolishing ICE.

Democratic candidate for congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  has called for the abolition of ICE. Politico/AP.

Despite a major Democratic push, most US voters oppose abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Politico. Only 1 in 4 voters in Politico/Morning Consult poll said they are in favor of abolishing ICE while 54% said they do not support it with the rest being undecided. Only among Democrats was there support of abolishing ICE with only a 43% plurality saying they should with 34% saying they should not. Republicans and Independents both supported keeping ICE at 79% and 54% respectively. 

My Comment:

This does not surprise me at all. Immigration enforcement is very popular and even in this poll it was shown that most people support it. I wasn't able to figure out how accurate the poll is in terms of sampling but President Trump's approval rating was at 46%, only one point off from the generally reliable Rasmussen polls, so I am guessing it is ok. 

I think part of this is due to the fact that the immigration faux controversy has fallen back into the background along with Stormy Daniels and gun control. The big controversy now is the Supreme Court and the Thai cave story was a pretty good positive distraction as well. People have forgotten about the "border crisis".

Part of it too was how dishonest the media was being about the issue. Everyone saw the Time magazine cover with the crying little girl that people said was separated from her family. Once the truth came out that she was never separated from her family a lot of the outrage ceased, along with the fact that the holding facilities looked nicer than most people's houses. Plus there was the whole "let's use pictures of the Obama administration to discredit the Trump administration" thing as well. 

I think even among the people that thought the child separation was a problem disagreed with trying to end ICE. The obvious solution would be to end the child separations. People still want immigration laws enforced but want it done in a more "humane" way. Among those people I am guessing they think abolishing ICE is equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Still, I think immigration enforcement is fairly popular and I am guessing there are a lot of people that only said "abolish ICE" because they were afraid to say what they think. When it comes down to it I don't think people want illegal immigrants flowing into the country. 

Which makes me wonder why on earth the Democrats are trying to run on this issue? Immigration enforcement is popular among their minority base as blacks and legal Hispanics do want our borders protected. Sure, the activist left hates it but that just seems like the lunatics running the asylum. 

My only guess is that the Democratic Party is only going open borders because Donald Trump is an anti-immigration. The party doesn't seem to have much else going on for them other than opposing Donald Trump and have no real message otherwise. 

After Trump got elected I thought that was going to be a turning point for the Democrats. It was, but not in the way I expected. Instead of trying to the center to try and widen their base they have gone far left. And now a small number of extremely loud activists are in control of the party and have gone so far as to advocate violence. '

This is a pretty terrible outcome for them but one that helps the Republicans greatly. The hard left turn of the party and the reprehensible behavior we are seeing from the left is going to fire up the GOP and turn off independents. Instead of the referendum on Trump, I feel the 2018 midterms are going to be a referendum on the Democrats... 

I'm slightly nervous for President Trump's visit to the UK.

President Donald Trump is visiting the UK this Sunday and I am not really that happy about it. Why? Well here is a list:

-There are going to be huge protests in London. Some of those protesters are going to be unhinged.

-England has a huge problem with Islamic extremism. That problem is out of control and could threaten our president.

-The Mayor of London is a Muslim who hates Donald Trump and is very far to the left politically.

-The May government is about to collapse in on itself over Brexit. The country is not as stable as it could be.

Of course Trump has visited other countries before. His trip to France brought up similar concerns but it went off without a hitch. So why worry about the UK? I don't know. Maybe it's nothing but I just have a gut feeling that the UK isn't a place where the president of the United States should visit. It's sad to say but I would feel much better if President Trump was visiting North Korea instead of the UK...

President Trump picks Brett Kavanaugh as his next SCOTUS pick.

President Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh at the announcement. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump has picked Brett Kavanaugh as his replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Reuters. Kavanaugh is a conservative appellate judge who served on Ken Starr's investigation into President Bill Clinton. However, Kavanaugh later said that presidents should not be under investigation during their terms. Kavanaugh is set to make the court more conservative. Currently the court has a 5-4 majority for conservatives but Anthony Kennedy was often a swing vote. Kavanaugh is less likely to be so and now faces a tough confirmation battle. With John McCain unlikely to vote, he will need every single Republican to confirm him. 

My Comment:

A reasonable pick for SCOTUS. I think that Kavanaugh will be a good member of the Supreme Court and will serve for quite some time. He's relatively young too at 54 and probably has 25-30 years if he gets confirmed. 

I also think that he should be confirmed. Unlike other nominees, Kavanaugh is unlikely to rule against Roe vs Wade. That was a major stumbling block for Susan Collins of Maine. She had said that she wouldn't support a candidate that wanted to overturn the ruling but that stumbling block is out of the way. With her and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on board that leaves 50 Republicans probably on board. John McCain probably won't vote, either for health reasons or for pure spite against President Trump and I doubt any Democrats will cross over to support Kavanaugh. That means that he has enough votes to pass but just barely. 

The battle will be horrible though. I fully expect that the media and the Democratic leadership will throw a temper tantrum over this nomination and a quick perusal of Twitter shows that it is already happening. The Democrats are pretty much powerless to stop the confirmation though unless they can convince a 2nd Republican to not support him. I don't see that happening, but there is going to be a lot of pressure on more liberal members of the GOP Senate.

That means that there is going to be a big push by the Democrats and their media allies. They are already trying to point Kavanaugh as an extremist. They are also trying to make a big deal about the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't support investigations into the president. This is just a bunch of sound and fury though as there is little chance that they can block this nomination. 

As for policy, I like Kavanaugh for one reason and one reason only. He's a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. He has ruled against assault weapons bans and gun registration schemes and is likely to strike down laws that are similar. He might also push the court to actually rule on gun rights. The current court has not been taking 2nd amendment cases but that could change if Kavanaugh gets confirmed. 

On other issues I am less sure which way Kavanaugh will go. It's pretty clear he's more moderate than Trump's other candidates on abortion rights which means Roe vs Wade isn't going anywhere though I do think he might support more regulations. Kavanaugh might not be the best justice on 4th amendment rights as he usually sides with the government when it comes to search and seizures. As for immigration I have no idea. But again, as long as the 2nd amendment is protected I am happy and if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it should be safe for another generation. 

The real question is what happens when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies or retires. At this point she seems to be holding on by pure spite alone, much like John McCain, even if it would be a better result for her to enjoy her remaining time in retirement. Once she is gone Trump will get another SCOTUS pick and one that will likely give the court a 6-3 majority for a very long time. With another liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, getting up their in years there is even a chance at a 7-2 court which would last a generation. 

I also want to point out to the "never Trump" crowd that opposed Trump so hard, that they should be very happy with Trump's two SCOTUS picks. Both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are great conservative picks that aren't that different from what Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have picked. The difference is that Trump was actually able to win...