President Donald Trump has announced new tariffs on Mexico in response to the immigration crisis. BBC. Trump said on twitter that the tariffs would begin at 5% on June 6th and would increase, up to 25%, through October. President Trump has attempted to build a border wall to help deal with the crisis but has been stymied by activist judges and congress. He said that the tariffs would continue until Mexico does something to slow the flow of illegal aliens to America. Mexico is a major trade partner and would be hurt severely by any tariffs.
On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,..
My Comment:
These tariffs will likely cause Mexico to finally do something about the wave of illegals from Central America that have been flooding across their borders. After some initial moves to slow down the human wave, Mexico eventually abandoned them and opened the floodgates. America has been paying the price since.
With the border wall being stymied by activist judges and Congress, Trump has to do something to slow the flow of migrants. The wall would be much easier but the Democrats have prevented most building. They greatly benefit from illegal immigration as they will eventually either gain citizenship or have anchor babies and they will largely vote for Democrats.
With no other options, tariffs are about all Trump can do easily. Mexico could and will stop illegal immigration that comes from Central America. I don't think they can stop their own people from leaving but they have their own border wall and can deport people in their country illegally.
Trump has other options as well if he really wants to play hardball. The biggest thing he could do is impose a tax on remittances. Millions of dollars are set back to Mexico by illegal aliens and if Trump put a 100% tax on them it would destroy Mexico's economy over night. That option would be a last resort but if nothing else works it is in Trump's power.
I am guessing that Mexico will have to respond to this. They don't have much of a choice as their economy is so dependent on Americas. I am guessing that they will do something about illegal immigration sooner rather than later.
My Comment:
The actual incident itself in this case wasn't too bad. If it had been done by someone else it wouldn't have been a big deal and even with it being Biden I don't think he did that much wrong. His comments were a bit out there but not over the top and it's not like he groped this young girl. There is way worse footage of Biden out there and this is mild in comparison. If he did it to an adult woman I doubt this would have even be noteworthy
That being said, what the hell was Joe Biden thinking? I am sure his handlers told him to avoid physical contact with women and girls until the #MeToo thing blew over, but he just blew it. He gave a perfectly good excuse for his right wing and left wing opponents to bring up his creepiness again. If I were him I'd probably adapt a "Mike Pence" rule where I was never in close contact with a woman or a girl, at least until the campaign is over one way or another. In 2019, fairly or unfairly, it's just bad optics to do what Biden did and I can't believe that he thought it would be a good idea
It almost makes me wonder if there is something wrong with Joe Biden. He is fairly old so maybe his memory isn't as good? It's also possible that he just doesn't realize in the moment how creepy he is when he touches people like this. He may have been reminded not to do this kind of thing anymore but he just forgets about it while he is doing it. Or, he simply does not care. Biden's old school and a touchy feeley kind of guy, perhaps he doesn't see anything wrong with what he is doing.
In the end though, I doubt that this incident will have much of an impact. Indeed, most of the media is trying to ignore it. Business Insider was one of the few outlets that I could find that wasn't explicitly right wing or far left. The major news outlets seem to be leaving this story alone.
Plus, I had a hell of a time even finding Business Insider as a source. Google News seems to be suppressing this story as I had to dig pretty far into their recommendations to even find this source. Most of the other stories about Biden were ones about his recent argument with President Trump over North Korea, and those were framed positively for the candidate.
I do think it would probably be a mistake for the Democrats to choose Joe Biden as their candidate. If he keeps doing this kind of thing eventually it will hurt him at the polls. With the Democrats facing an uphill battle for 2020, they don't need a candidate that is going to be perceived as harmful to women and children, no matter how fairly or unfairly that is.
I also have to say that I find it pretty amusing that Biden is getting #MeToo'ed. After the unsuccessful attempt to take down Donald Trump, and the successful attack against Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race, it's nice to see Democrats hoisted by their own petard. It probably won't matter in the end, unless Biden really can't keep his hands to himself, but the Democrats did call something up that they can't easily put down.
Roy Moore, who lost a safe GOP seat in Alabama to Democrat Doug Jones, may be running again for the senate seat in 2020. Politico. Donald Trump Jr. blasted Moore on Twitter saying he was the only candidate that could lose against a Democrat in Alabama. Moore ran an insurgent campaign against President Trump's endorsed candidate, Luther Strange, but lost a special election after accusations of inappropriate conduct with teenage girls surfaced. Moore has been making waves by criticizing some of the other Republicans running for the seat, including Representative Bradly Byrne. Doug Jones is one of the most vulnerable Senators in 2020 and if defeated could protect the GOP's majority in the Senate.
You mean like last time? You’re literally the only candidate who could lose a GOP seat in pro-Trump, pro-USA ALABAMA. Running for office should never become a business model. If you actually care about #MAGA more than your own ego, it's time to ride off into the sunset, Judge. https://t.co/Twg9isFRkY
My Comment:
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I always thought that the accusations against Roy Moore were an obvious political hitjob. The accusations against him were either laughable, unproven or acceptable at the time he did them. It was fairly obvious that the media and the Democrats teamed up to bash Moore when he really didn't deserve it.
That being said, I also think that Moore has no business running, even back then. Even if the accusations against him are false, he was never a good candidate in the first place. He was fairly controversial even outside the accusations against him, being a religious zealot and not very mainstream.
He has even less of an argument today. He managed to lose one of the safest senate seats in the country, by a slim margin yes, but still. He's a proven loser and the GOP would have been better off if he hadn't ran and Luther Strange (or Mo Brooks, the also ran in the race) had been the candidate.
The whole situation reminds me of Arizona where another damaged candidate screwed up the race. I am, of course, talking about Sheriff Joe Arpiao. Arpaio was about as damaged as Roy Moore is and I still think he's a major reason why Kyrsten Sinema is now the junior senator of Arizona instead of Martha McSally. Arpaio entering the race, even though he was defeated, divided Republicans and may have given Sinema the edge in the race. So even if Moore is defeated he still might screw the GOP out of a Senate pickup in 2020.
My sincere hope is that Roy Moore just takes one for the team and doesn't run in 2020. The GOP doesn't need him but does need to take back Jeff Session's old seat. Doing so would help protect the Senate majority and makes sure that, at the very least, they would keep one of the houses of power in the United States.
Finally, I have to say that this whole thing could have avoided if President Trump had not hired Jeff Sessions. If he hadn't Sessions would have remained an ally in the Senate and would have kept a very safe seat probably for quite some time. Given his terrible performance as Attorney General, and the fact that he didn't nip the Russia hysteria in the bud and the fact that his seat was lost for basically no reason makes me think that he was by far the worst mistake President Trump made.
Five US Navy FA-18 Super Hornet pilots have said that they have encountered UFO's off of the East Coast of the United States as recently as 2015. Warzone/The Drive. Two of the pilots, from the Navy's Red Rippers squadron, went on record with the New York Times and said that the objects encountered displayed abilities that are far beyond our current levels of known technology. The objects were able to fly for hours and preform radical maneuvers that are conventionally impossible. The detection of these objects may have been due to greatly improved sensor technology, however in one case an object got so close to the F-18's that it actually crossed between two pilots. That close call spured a change in Navy regulations on reporting UFO incidents due to the obvious and extreme safety hazard these objects now posed. The object was described as a cube with a sphere around it, defying all known aircraft and drone design. The pilots didn't speculate much on what the objects could be but did say they did not belive it was secret US Military technology as they thought it would be unlikely that the government would test such technology near US forces training on the East Coast.
Very good reporting by Warzone/The Drive, along with the New York Times. The article helped fill in the gaps in the New York Times report and helped explain why we are all of a sudden hearing about UFO's. It seems pretty clear that our new sensor technology is helping to pick these things up, whatever they are. Even the 2004 tic-tac incident happened when the Navy was using advanced sensor technology, so it might explain why we are suddenly seeing these objects.
The 2015 incident is pretty jaw-dropping and one that has serious implications for pilot safety. To have such an unpredictable and unexplained object fly so close to our pilots is obviously a huge threat. It could have very easily collided with one or both of them either forcing the pilots to eject or killing them outright. This incident helps explain why the Navy is suddenly taking these incidents seriously. Their main goal has to be the protection of their pilots and their planes so they are obviously very motivated to figure out what these things are.
The descriptions of these objects are fairly bizarre. They have been described as tic-tac shaped or like a cube in a sphere, neither of which would be able to fly under our current technology. They also pull off maneuvers that not only would kill any pilot but seem to defy the laws of physics. They are pretty much impossible under our current technology but there is video, technological and eyewitness proof that something is going on out there.
This is, of course, a huge threat to national security. Without knowing what these things are or who is controlling them, if they are indeed controlled, we don't know what they could potentially do. Any of the possible explanations, other than it being US tech or a natural phenomenon, means were are hopelessly outclassed technologically by... something.
As for possible explanations for this phenomenon, there are quite a few. The most mundane is that these pilots are wrong and the sensors are just screwing up. It could be a computer glitch or just some unknown natural phenomenon confusing pilots. That explanation seems possible but unlikely due to the fact that more and more of these incidents are coming out and the existence of video for some of these objects.
Another is that it is secret US technology. That's certainly possible, I remember way back in my childhood people reporting things like the F-117 Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit as UFO's before they were publicly reveled during the Gulf War. If so though, the operators of these objects need to be challenged on their behavior as it seems likely that they are putting the US Navy at risk for no good reason.
Much more concerning is the idea that this isn't US technology. That means that some other government or organization has technology that far exceeds the US military's. That is a huge, almost existential threat to the US and its interests. Who would control this tech is a mystery though as the list of possible suspects is very small and I don't think China, Russia, Japan or the various countries of Europe would test their tech like this.
Most concerning of all is the possibility that these objects are not of this Earth. There isn't any evidence of that so far and the above options are much more likely, but the fact that it's even a possibility that is being discussed is fairly frightening. If these are extraterrestrial craft than there is probably very little we can do about it. And who knows what their intentions would be.
This whole series of incidents and reports seem strange, not only because of their content but because of the reaction to it. If you would have asked me years ago what the reaction would be if the US government admitted that the military was having fairly frequent encounters with unknown objects and released video evidence and eyewitness testimony of those incident I would have said the reaction would have been earthshaking. Instead it seems to have flown completely under the radar.
Why? I think part of it is the somewhat deserved reputation of UFO enthusiasts as being crazy conspiracy theorists. I mean, many of the people involved even with this are pretty out there individuals. Tom DeLonge is pretty out there and it was his Academy of Arts and Sciences that broke this story. And that's not counting the truly crazy people out there like David Icke and Bob Lazar. Certainly the public image of a UFO investigator is, well, this:
History Channel.
Part of it too is the fact that the US media is out to lunch on ANY story that isn't negative about Trump. There is no way to spin these incidents as being bad for President Trump so the US media has little incentive to cover it. Indeed, I have encountered a few people who haven't even seen the above posted video and that's probably due to bias in the US media.
Still, even with the lack of coverage, I feel that this is a very important story and one that deserves further coverage. I will continue to blog about these incidents as long as they keep being reported. The entire world needs to know what these things are and what, if anything, they are doing.
Rescue workers at the scene of the attack. AFP/Reuters.
Two people are feared dead and 17 were wounded in a mass stabbing attack in Kawasaki Japan. AFP. The two victims were described as showing no vital signs, which is commonly used in Japan as shorthand for people who have died but have not been pronounced dead by a doctor. One of the two feared dead was a female child while the other was an adult male. 17 other people were wounded, many of which were also children. A suspect was detained at the site but he stabbed himself in the neck before he was captured. He was armed with two knives. No motive has been released. Japan has very low crime rates and rarely has mass attacks like this, but has seen several mass stabbings in recent years.
My Comment:
This information is very preliminary and may change after this post has been written. Very little has been written about the incident other than the AFP report. NBC News and BBC had posted some stories but they were very threadbare. It's very possible that more information will come out soon. I've seen some reports that three people died but I don't know if that is legit or not.
This was a pretty horrifying attack. Mass stabbings always seem more horrible to me than mass shootings or bombings as the attack is much more personal. And the fact that the attacker targeted children makes it all the more horrible.
It seems like Japan's police response time was pretty bad here. You would have thought that cops would have been on scene fairly quickly and would have taken the suspect down. Japanese police do carry guns but also use unarmed and armed techniques to subdue criminals. I think this was a case of the cops just not getting there in time to stop the attacker. Indeed, it sounds like as soon as they showed up the attacker stopped and stabbed himself so a quicker response time might have saved some people.
To be fair, it's not like Japan has a lot of experience with these kind of attacks. They are a calm society with very little crime. Mass attacks like this aren't unheard of but they are extremely rare. Very few people in Japan are violent and they have very few people that have political or religious beliefs that encourage violence.
This attack also is proof that gun control isn't going to end mass violence. Japan doesn't have anything like a right to bear arms and gun ownership is extremely limited. But they have had several mass stabbings where multiple people have been injured or killed. As long as people have the desire to kill and injure large numbers of people, they will find a way.
Mass stabbings do seem like a fairly effective way to injure and kill a large number of people, especially when they can't fight back. Targeting children is even more effective as they have no way to fight back and are not good at escaping. As long as nobody is armed a lot of people can be hurt or killed.
A privately funded gofundme drive called We Build the Wall has begun work on erecting a border wall near El Paso Texas. Fox News. The wall was built on private land and was the first time that any border controls have been erected on private land. The Army Corp of Engineers had originally said that the area was too rugged to build in the area, but the plan went off without a hitch. The project was funded by a gofundme drive that raised more than $20 million. The leaders of the campaign said the spot was chosen because it is a prime area for smugglers and there are very few border controls in the area. About 1/2 of a mile of border fence will be built by May 31st, according to the organizers. Brian Kolfage, one of the organizers of the plan, said they are already planning a second section of fence and asked for additional funds to complete the wall.
Full disclosure time, I sent $25 to this campaign, so I am obviously not objective. Not a huge deal, but I'd feel negligent if I didn't point that out. Not that I was ever going to be mistaken for someone who isn't in favor of border controls, but it's probably relevant anyways.
As a donor what is my take on this? I'm fairly happy about it. There had been a lot of negative stories in the press that said Biran Kolfage was ripping everyone off and that the wall would never be built. There was some chatter about him buying a yacht, but in the end it didn't matter and some of the wall got built. Just goes to show that you can't trust the media yet again. For the minimal amount that I spent, I'd say I got my money's worth.
I also have to say that so many times during the 2016 election I heard pundits and other naysayers say "if you want a border wall so much, why not pay for it yourself". At the time they were being insulting but in the end that's what thousands of donors did. Be careful what you wish for.
How effective will this barrier be? It really depends on how much is built around it. If illegals and smugglers can just go around the other end of the wall it's not going to matter too much. From what it sounds like though it seems as though the wall connected up with an existing portion of the wall and ends near a mountain which is impassible. If correct, that would probably, at the very least, force smugglers to cross elsewhere or use expensive, complicated and dangerous workarounds, like tunneling, to get past the fence.
Truth be told, not a whole lot of wall was built. It was little over a half mile long, which is not much for a border that is almost 2000 miles long. It's a start but it's no way near solving the massive problem at the US/Mexico border. It's a drop in the bucket and much more work needs to be done.
It also seems as though they built this area on the cheap. As of this writing the campaign has raised around $22.5 million. To get a half mile of border fence for that is a pretty good deal, and it sounds as though not all the money was spent already. If that's the case then the US government is getting ripped off by it's contractors who should be able to build the wall for cheaper.
The big question now is if the gofundme will continue to gather money. Most of the media is ignoring this story, with most of the outlets covering it being conservative ones. People are talking about it, but the issue isn't trending on Twitter. The media also poisoned the well by saying that Kolfage was scamming people out of their money and that will have scared some people away. We may see a 2nd wave of donations, but I don't expect it to be as large as the first.
Deputy Prime Minster Matteo Salvini casts his vote. AP.
EU Parliament elections show big gains for euro-skeptic and green parties with losses for more centrist parties. AP. Turnout was up with almost 50% of eligible voters participating in the election. Many countries saw gains for anti-EU parties. In the UK, the number one party was the Brexit Party, which would lose their seats if Brexit eventually happens. In France Marine La Pen's National Rally Party won the most seats in a major rebuke to Emmanuel Macron. In Germany Merkel's coalition partners lost seats while Greens gained many seats with the far right gaining some as well. In Italy Matteo Salvini's anti-EU Leauge won and is now the largest party in Italy. And in Hungry, Prime Minster Victor Orban's party gained a seat. However, pro EU parties are expected to keep much of their power, but new coalition members will be needed for the ruling EPP and S&D parties.
My Comment:
Most international media is downplaying the major victories that right wing and euro-skeptic parties have gotten in this election and are overplaying the victories of the green parties. To be sure, the Greens did good but they aren't the big story in this election. The right wing parties pretty much dominated many countries and had decent gains in others. Italy, France and the UK were dominated by euro-skeptic parties.
I will say that it looks like the people of Europe are starting to get sick of the EU, or at least the way the block is going. Obviously the right wingers voting for anti-EU parties is a pretty big symptom of that, but I would say the Greens winning as well is a proof that the status quo isn't popular. I'd say that choosing the Greens would be a mistake as well, but at the very least they want to do things differently than the status quo.
I do find it fairly funny that the Brexit party did so well in the UK when it seems as though the Brexit drama will never end. Even with Theresa May gone it seems as though Brexit will never happen. And if it does the members elected to the EU Parliament will obviously be kicked out. It will be pretty funny for these members to be sitting while waiting for Brexit to happen.
The French results are especially telling. People are tired of Emmanuel Macron's centrism and want something different. Voting for Marine La Pen's party is a pretty huge middle finger to Macron and given her father's supposed ties to racism it's a fairly stunning rebuke. I wouldn't be surprised if Macron is gone after France's next national elections...
I do have to wonder who are the people still voting for the establishment in Europe. Given the massive problems the EU is having with immigration and terrorism, I can't imagine anyone voting for a party that supports unlimited immigration. But these parties were not wiped out by the euro-skeptic parties.
I'm far from an expert on European politics though and much of what goes on there is a mystery to me. It seems crazy to me that the right wing parties didn't win more even if they did have a historic victory. How anyone could support the EU at this point after the massive terror attacks, rape gangs and general chaos the migrant crisis has caused is beyond me.
Theresa May has resigned as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom after failing to deliver on Brexit. NPR. May said that failing to accomplish Brexit would be her biggest regret after spending all three of her years as Prime Minister trying to enforce it. May became Prime Minister after the Brexit vote passed and David Cameron resigned. Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London had been considered for the role but his run had been torpedoed by his campaign manager. May faced a massive task trying to negotiate between the EU as well as elements within her own country, including Scottish Nationalists. Her biggest mistake was to call for another election in 2017 to try and increase the Tories majority, but it failed forcing her government to join in a coalition with the Democratic Unionist party of Northern Ireland. May tried to pass an agreement with the EU concerning Ireland but failed three times roundly.
My Comment:
No surprise here, May's tenure was hanging on by a thread. When your party promises to make a major policy change but completely fails to deliver it's not going to end well for you. Without doing Brexit there was no chance of her remaining in the role.
May made some major mistakes, most notably the one where she called for elections when she didn't need to do so. It backfired on her spectacularly with Labor making major gains and May losing her majority. She barely managed to hang on, forming a coalition government.
I don't think May was the right person for the job. Brexit was all about leaving the EU and May never acted like she wanted it. She did her best to try, but she was never willing to do what was needed to make sure that they left the EU. If she had just gone with a no-deal Brexit, the band-aid would have been ripped of and she's probably would have been fine.
It's unclear who is going to replace May as Prime Minister. Boris Johnson is the front runner but who knows if that would work out. I do think that whoever it is should be someone that actually believes in Brexit. Then the people of the UK will finally gain some of their freedom back.
As for me, I was never a fan of Theresa May. She never seemed like she like America and very obviously hated President Trump. It's possible she was personally involved in the spying on President Trump's 2016 campaign and afterwards. I sincerely hope that the next Prime Minster of the UK is more friendly to the US and actually delivers on Brexit.
I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand I hated these two idiots and it was pretty disgusting to see them as a top reply to pretty much every single President Trump Tweet. Their posts were garbage and had nothing to do with reality and it was frustrating to see them consistently in the top replies to the President. If anyone deserved to have a social media death, just because they were annoying and stupid, it was those two.
On the other, I've spoken out about social media bans before. I generally think that social media is far to likely to ban people for little reason and often for political reasons. I also think that the social media giants are only enforcing rules on second accounts and purchasing followers because they don't like the competition. You can, of course, boost your tweets on Twitter and they will always crack down on people who want to cheat the system. This isn't so much about what the brothers did, but how they did it. If they had paid their money to Twitter directly they would have been fine, but they didn't and now they are gone.
However, I think the big difference between the Krassensteins and the various conservatives that got banned is that the brothers were clearly violating the rules. Unlike many of the other people banned who either did nothing wrong or were pretty far from violating the rules, it seems likely that the Krassenstein brothers were doing it blatantly. This makes it very hard to feel sorry for the Krassensteins, even if I hate social media bans in principle.
I always though there was something up with Krassensteins always showing up under President Trump's posts. I had assumed that the problem was Twitter itself. They have an obvious political bias against President Trump and would have the motive and means to promote people that attack President Trump.
But I might have been wrong about that. It seems clear that at least part of the problem with the Krassensteins was the fact that they were gaming the system. They had fake accounts boosting their posts and that may have helped them show up under Trump all the time.
So, did the brothers deserve to be banned? I think it's clear they gamed the system and by Twitter's rules they clearly should be banned. But I also think that most people shouldn't be banned from social media unless they are breaking the law. I don't think the Krassensteins broke the law so I do think that a permaban is probably excessive.
That being said, I absolutely despise these two brothers. They are a good example of two people trying to take advantage of people who desperately want someone to tell them what they want to hear. They are liars and snake oil salesmen and the political discourse in this country would be much better if it wasn't for people like the Krassensteins bringing everything down. Though I am at least uncomfortable with their banning, I can't ignore the fact that they were just absolutely terrible.
A Russian serviceman at Hmeimim airbase in Syria. RT/Sputnik.
Russian media is reporting a massive attack against the Syrian government and Russian forces launched by al-Nusra. RT. Al-Nusra reportedly launched 17 missiles from a MRLS at Hmeimim airbase, which is a major Russian airbase in the region. Russian forces claim to have intercepted 9 of the missiles while the rest fell short. The attack came as al-Nusra launched a major attack against Syrian forces. 500 militants armed with 7 tanks, 4 APC's, 30 technicals and at least two vehicle borne IED's. The attack was beaten back by the Syrians leaving 150 terrorists dead and 3 tanks and 24 technicals destroyed. The al-Nusra Front has regularly targeted the Hmeimim airbase with missiles rockets and drones but they have largely failed to damage the airbase.
My Comment:
Western media wasn't covering this story so I was forced to use RT as a source. As always when I cite RT, remember that it's pretty much literal Russian propaganda. That doesn't mean it's unreliable per se but you should realize that they have their own set of biases and problems.
Hmeinin airbase has come under fairly regular attack and it seems like Russia's Pantsir air defense system is working fairly well. They have defended against rocket, missile and drone attacks coming out from Idlib province, the last major area under the control of the rebels and terrorist groups.
Russia claims these attacks came from al-Nusra Front, also known as Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham. The group was formally aligned with al-Qadea and is likely the largest terrorist army still in existence now that ISIS has been largely destroyed. US policy is seemingly to ignore the existence of al-Nusra, but they are a major threat.
This offensive seems like a major failure if the RT article is correct about their numbers. Al-Nusra lost many of their vehicles and a large number of soldiers though it is unclear if they inflicted a similar amount of damage to the Syrian government.
The article said that there are reports that both sides of the conflict may be prepared to use chemical weapons again. If so, that would not be a good thing for either side. The Syrians would obviously anger the world community if they did so and al-Nusra could gain international attention if they did.
I do think that the Syrian civil war is in the endgame. Al-Nusra is the last major anti-government militia and they just failed in an attack against the government. The non-terrorist rebels are spent and ISIS is an afterthought. The Syrian government is largely in control and once they finally gain control of Idlib province the war will be over...
Former Vice President Joe Biden. The Hill/Greg Nash.
North Korea has bashed former Vice President Joe Biden in an official state media editorial in KCNA. The Hill. The article said Biden was a “snob bereft of elementary quality as human being" and was overestimating his chances of victory. The article made fun of Biden's 2020 campaign and said he was of low IQ. It is unclear what inspired the article, but it could be due to Biden's recent comments condemning President Trump for working with "dictators" like Vladmir Putin and North Korea's supreme leader Kim Jong Un.
My Comment:
You can find the KCNA article here, if you have a translation program like Google Translate or can speak Korean.
As for the incident itself, it's more funny than anything serious. North Korea has a funny way of insulting people and in this case it's great because I am not a fan of Joe Biden. Calling him a "fool of low IQ" is pretty hilarious regardless of politics.
It seems pretty likely that North Korea wants President Trump to win. They know who Joe Biden is and with him being the VP under Barack Obama I doubt they want him back. Biden would likely abandon the peace process and could even go to war with North Korea, though that's far from certain. Though the latest peace summit didn't work out at least with President Trump they have someone that wants to work with them.
I do think that the North Koreans have a point about Biden's candidacy being a sure thing. Though he is polling fairly well a lot could change between now and the primaries. Hell, Biden's old enough that he could drop dead before then. But he has a lot of competition and as some of the candidates drop out voters may coalesce around another candidate.
Anyways, for a slow news day I thought this was a good story to cover. Not every post has to be super serious and having the North Koreans essentially trash talking Joe Biden. I found it very funny and I thought I would share it.
A riot started by ISIS prisoners in Tajikistan ends with 3 guards and 29 inmates dead. BBC. ISIS prisoners started to riot and killed five fellow prisoners and the three guards. Guards then opened fire, though it is unclear how many of the dead were the ISIS fighters or general prisoners. Two of the prisoners killed by ISIS were members of the banned Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT) including a senior member named Sattor Karimov. This is the 2nd major prison riot caused by ISIS in Tajikistan as the terror group took responsibility for another riot last November that left 2 guards and 21 prisoners dead.
My Comment:
I don't know too much about Tajikistan or the conditions of the prisoners there but I do know a bit about prison riots. Back in my college days I read about some of the worst prison riots here in the United States and I have to say the whole idea is horrifying. Imagine being a non-ISIS prisoner in this riot. Not only do you have to worry about the ISIS guys killing you but you stand a good chance of being caught up in the crossfire when the guards open fire. And you would have no way to defend yourself from either. Horrifying.
This prison riot is the 2nd one in Tajikistan and it makes me wonder how bad conditions are in the country's prison. Riots are often caused by bad conditions and poor security can make them much worse. My guess is these prisons aren't the best in the world and lives could have been saved if they were ran better. That's not a knock on Tajikistan as America's prisons have their own problems with rioting, but it seems likely to be true.
As for ISIS, this just shows that even as they have been destroyed on the battlefield they remain a threat. Even though ISIS has been greatly reduced there are many surviving fighters and supporters and even imprisoning them doesn't end the threat.
Just because someone is locked up doesn't mean that they aren't still a threat. Many of these ISIS survivors are battle hardened warriors or terrorists. And they can recruit and radicalize while they are in prison. They won't have a problem trying to kill others and commit terrorism.
Of course ISIS has a long history of being involved in prisons. They were pretty much formed in one as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi formed the precursor for ISIS in an Iraqi prison. The problem with housing these people together is that they can work with each other and radicalize other prisoners. That's how ISIS started and there is no reason that it won't continue in the future.
I have the feeling that this problem won't just be contained to Tajikistan. Many states are holding ISIS prisoners and I think the same thing could happen again and again unless many steps are taken to prevent it. ISIS fighters should not be housed with other ISIS fighters and should probably have their interactions with other prisoners reduced with continous solitary confinement the best solution. That may seem somewhat cruel but given it's ISIS I don't think many people will object
Broken glass on the floor of the bus. BBC/Reuters.
A terror attack in Egypt targeting tourists near the Pyramids of Giza has wounded 16 people. BBC. The attack occurred near a tour bus that was parked near the Grand Egyptian Museum, which is near the Pyramids. Most of the injuries were minor though three people were hospitalized by the attack. A private vehicle was damaged in the attack as well. The victims were a mix of South African tourists and native Egyptians. Egypt has had major problems with terrorism and is one of the few countries where ISIS still controls territory. It is unclear who was responsible for the attack.
My Comment:
A quick post about Egypt. Looks like they barely managed to avoid a major incident. The bomb failed to kill anyone but that seems to have been a matter of luck more than anything. A more powerful bomb could have killed everyone on that bus and anyone nearby as well, but the bomb used did not do so. Maybe it was a fizzle or failed to explode correctly?
Egypt has had major damage done to their tourism industry due to the major attacks they have suffered from ISIS and other groups. Even some tourists have been injured and killed. This has had a major effect on Egypt's economy as tourists have decided to stay home. This attack will probably contribute to that problem.
It's unclear who is responsible for this attack. ISIS is the most likely suspect but they are far from the only one that exists in Egypt. I would say that they have attacked tourists before so it wouldn't be any surprise if they were the ones responsible.
ISIS hasn't gotten too much attention but if they did pull this attack off they are proving that they are still alive and kicking. The attack was mostly a failure but it does show that whoever is responsible at least has a bomb maker and can possibly pull off more attacks. The next one might be more serious and could actually kill people so let's hope that the Egyptian security forces can find this cell and bring them to justice.
A referendum severely restricting gun rights in Switzerland passed after pressure from the European Union. BBC. 64% of voters approved the new restrictions. The EU had demanded further gun control in the generally liberal and gun loving Switzerland or it risked being kicked out of the EU's Schengen Area, which would have economically devastated the country. The new rules would ban or heavily restrict semi and fully automatic guns. Any owners of such guns would have to register themselves and their weapon to the European Union, including any components of those guns. Nearly half of Swiss households have firearms.
My Comment:
Utterly disgusting that the Swiss people would stand for this. This was essentially blackmail by the European Union. Switzerland was one of the last places in Europe with anything resembling gun rights. By American standards their gun laws are crap but they are so much better than most gun laws in Europe. And now they are probably done for.
I don't buy for a second the idea that these gun restrictions were necessary to prevent terrorism. For one thing, Switzerland hasn't had any major terror attacks in recent memory. They did have a single terror plot but that involved poison gas and explosives, not firearms. And the draconian gun laws in places like France, Germany and Belgium did not stop any of the major terror attacks in those countries. Somehow despite these laws terrorists did not have any trouble getting fully automatic Kalashnikovs.
These laws are to ensure that civilians are disarmed and won't be able to defend themselves from enemies foreign and domestic. Given that Europe is likely heading towards civil war in the next few decades, it's just going to make things that much worse for civilians who will have no way to defend themselves from terror attacks and civil disorder.
It's unclear exactly how Switzerland's gun laws are going to change. Even the BBC article contradicted itself saying it would ban fully automatic and semiautomatic firearms but at the same time saying that those guns would have to be registered. Other sources are just as unclear but either way it's a major new restriction on gun rights on a formally free country.
With Switzerland falling there are few countries left in the world that have good gun laws. Other than Pakistan and Yemen, there are no countries that are as free as America. In Europe Czechia and Serbia have comparably good gun laws but they are likely to face the same pressure from the EU as Switzerland. Though some countries have loosened their gun laws, most notably Brazil and Russia, it's clear which way the trend is going.
It does make me fear that gun rights could be under threat in America as well. Though we have a pro-gun President and a pro-gun Supreme Court, both of those things could change in time. For the short term things are safe but as more countries fall things could get bad for gun rights...
Iran's Foreign Minster Mohammad Javad Zarif. BBC/Reuters.
Iran's Foreign Minster Mohammad Javad Zarif says that "there will be no war" between Iran and the United States. BBC. Though tensions between the countries remain very high, Zarif's comments match President Donald Trump who also said that he did not want war. Zarif claimed that Trump's advisers were the ones that want war but he realizes that Trump himself does not want it. Tensions are high after the US pulled out of a nuclear agreement and have resulted in warnings about attacks by Iranian proxies and more US forces in the area.
My Comment:
Once again, I've always maintained that Iran was likely to go the same way that North Korea did. All the saber rattling and threats don't amount to much and may be a prelude to talks. The entire situation reminds me of the first steps of the North Korea thaw.
If you remember, tensions were very high with North Korea right after Trump was elected. Trump and the North Korean government exchanged insults, but it was always clear that Trump left the door open for negotiation. Eventually North Korea decided to use that door, and although the situation isn't perfect now, it's massively better than it was when we all started.
I think something similar is here. I think Trump's strategy is the same. Saber rattle and insult your opponents but at the same time leaving the door open for a face saving deal. It's fairly predictable and if Iran goes for it, it will be for the best.
However, the real question is if Iran will go for it. This is the first sign I have seen that it's possible that they will. They have been much more aggressive than North Korea ever was and have ideological and practical reasons to not want to negotiation with President Trump.
Ideologically, Iran hates Israel and America and doesn't want to be seen weak by getting into an agreement with America that could threaten their ambitions in the region. The reason they accepted Obama's deal wasn't because they genuinely wanted peace but because they knew they got a sweetheart deal.
And practically, Iran may want to just wait it out. After all, they made a big deal with Obama and the Democrats and might expect that if/when Trump is out of office they will get a better deal with the next presumably Democratic president. That's the same play China is making and even if they are wrong and Trump gets re-elected (which I believe he will) they only have to wait four more years after that. Why not wait Trump out?
Still, sanctions are hurting Iran pretty badly and it seems like they are terrified of Trump's war hawk advisers, especially John Bolton. They may decide to come to the table just so Trump doesn't listen to Bolton, who is perceived at least as wanting to start a war. I am thinking that despite the obvious reasons not to come to the table, Iran may indeed decide that discretion is the better part of valor here.
I sincerely hope that war can be avoided. Obviously, I don't want Trump to start a war, but if Iran miscalculates and attacks us at home or abroad, it pretty much has to happen. Right now, I think that outcome is very unlikely and I feel like cooler heads will prevail in the end.
No normal post today because I had a busy day. I went to an outdoor gun range and tried out my Ruger AR 556 again. In addition to my AR, I also took my CZ PO7 and my Remington 700. I also borrowed my range buddy's S&W M&P 9mm and .22. It was a decent, though not perfect day for it as it was bright and sunny with a decent temperature. However, it was fairly windy and that caused some problems for me. It's the main reason why I didn't take any pictures as my range targets were pretty beat up when I was done with them.
My handgun shooting, as usual, left something to be desired. The handgun targets at this range are attached to a fence and with the wind being pretty high it made it pretty hard to shoot. It was practically like shooting a moving target so I was all over the place. Since I suck with handguns in the first place, I didn't do my best. The guns handled ok, but I did have a failure to feed with my PO7 again. I didn't have the issue where the gun failed to lock open after being empty, so that is good. I think it might be because I switched to a different ammo, going with Federal 115 grain 9mm. It didn't like the Herter's 115 grain for some reason, but it's been running much better with the Federal American Eagle.
I then switched to the AR and I did ok with it. At 50 yards my accuracy was OK. Between the two of us we fired 58 rounds and 57 were on target and most of them were at least close to the center. Given the high winds and the fact I was shooting with iron sights I was happy with the results. Unfortunately, when I pulled the target off, it got completely shredded, so you will have to take my word for it.
I also fired off about 10 rounds from my Remington. Given the fact that I have a decent scope on it (a Weaver K4-W if you are curious) I did fine with it. I rarely shoot the Remington due to the cost of .308, but when I do bring it out I tend to better with it than any of my other guns. It's too bad that Remington has declined in quality in recent years, they used to make very good rifles.
I was fairly annoyed at the only other people at the range. As many of you probably have experienced, outdoor ranges can attract some idiots. These guys were shooting some cool guns but didn't really follow the range rules and were putting up their flags despite the fact that I was still shooting and the range-master hadn't called a cease fire. Not a huge deal but fairly rude. When they moved to pistols one of the guys was shooting his with his thumb right by the slide. I like to think that he lost some skin doing that but at that point we had left.
A few other random thoughts. First of all, I was fairly surprised how much of an effect wind has on me. It really pushes things around at makes it a bit more difficult to aim. Second, I'm starting to dislike the default stock on the AR 556. Even fully extended, it's a little short for me and it was way too short for my range buddy. I'm seriously considering replacing the stock or buying an extender recoil pad.
Finally, I don't know if I prefer indoor ranges or outdoor ones. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Outdoor ones are much cheaper and are usually less crowded, but tend to have more rules like no rapid. There are also the constant cease fires for people changing targets. Indoor ranges are a lot looser on the rules but tend to have more inexperienced people. Plus, I can't shoot my heavier bolt guns at them. Either way, I wish I had my own property to make the whole discussion moot, but that's probably not happening anytime soon.
Путин прилетел в Ахтубинск, где осмотрит образцы перспективного вооружения. Борт номер один на подлете сопровождало звено из шести истребителей Су-57 pic.twitter.com/lrUPtlquLB
— Кремлевский пул РИА (@Kremlinpool_RIA) May 14, 2019
My Comment:
I mostly posted this as an excuse for showing all that cool jet footage. The SU-57 is a good looking plane and seeing so many of them at once is very impressive. Supposedly this is the largest number of the jets filmed at once and I believe it.
However, I think this was more than just showing off for Putin and Russia. Sure, that is obviously part of it, Russia wants to drum up some sale for their advanced weapons systems, but I don't think that's the whole story here.
My guess is that Putin is sending a message to America and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Putin wants to remind the United States that Russia is still a major power and has some pretty advanced weapons. Though the SU-57 isn't a match for the F-22 and perhaps not even the F-35, it is still a very impressive fighter.
President Donald Trump has said a report in the New York Times that said the US was deploying 120,000 troops to the Middle East to counter attacks from Iran is fake news. The Hill. Trump was asked about the plan and said he thinks it is fake news. He went on to say "Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that." President Trump has increased pressure on Iran and has increased sanctions and enforced oil embargo on the Islamic country. However, Trump ran as an anti-intervention candidate. Iran has, for it's part, been highly critical of Trump's National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who is seen as a war hawk.
My Comment:
Looks like the New York Times got caught with their pants down again. My guess is that they heard one of many options being offered up about Iran and assumed that it was good to go. It seems very likely that the story was not correct. Trump denied it pretty forcefully and I tend to believe him.
Do we have a plan to go to war with Iran? Sure. We have a plan to go to war with the UK as well, or face an alien invasion or zombie uprising, but that doesn't mean any of those things are likely. The US government plans for pretty much anything and part of the Defense Departments job is to prepare plans like this and send them to the President. If a report exists, I am guessing it was a preliminary one out of many different options.
Plus, the numbers cited in the article make little sense. 120,000 troops is not anywhere near enough to invade Iran, even if most of those are combat troops. We would be seeing way more troops if that was the case. And the numbers are too high if we were just sending troops to the region to defend our current forces and interests in the Middle East. It's just an odd number all around.
It's also possible that this was just a John Bolton fantasy. Bolton is a bit of a war hawk and may indeed want us to change the regime in Iran. That doesn't mean that Trump is going to listen to his advice. Trump is famous for disagreeing with his advisers and I don't see why people would assume that even if the report was true that Trump would agree to do it.
For his part, President Trump certainly doesn't sound like he wants to go to war. Indeed, it seems a lot like his approach to North Korea, where he was using a lot of saber rattling to try and get them to the negotiating table. I'm pretty sure that is what he is doing again right now. It's going to be up to the Iranians though to see if they want to come to the table.
I do have to say that tensions are pretty high right now. Iran has been blamed for a sabotage attack on several ships, including oil transports under the flag of Saudi Arabia. And their proxies in Yemen, the Houthi rebels, just launched a drone attack on Saudi Arabia's oil pipelines. There is a real possibility that Iran could do something very stupid that could lead us all to war. Certainly the attack on the oil tankers isn't an action that helps anyone and the Iranians are lucky that nothing has come of it so far.
That being said, I don't think the Iranians are that stupid. Provoking a war between Iran and the United States would be a huge disaster for them, far worse than any sanctions or other economic stress. Though Iran is powerful, they know that going to war with the United States would be the end of their country for all intents and purposes.
Still, the rhetoric is getting a bit tense. Iran has always had intense rhetoric though, but I'm more concerned about their actions. If they do start launching attacks against US troops and civilians in the Middle East, there will be hell to pay. Let us hope that calmer heads prevail.
Robert Frances "Beto" O'Rourke is already rebooting his 2020 presidential campaign. Politico. O'Rourke has launched a series of high profile media appearances starting with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. He has stated that he needs to do a better job of reaching a national audience. O'Rourke has pre-campaign buzz but he has lingered around 5% in many polls, with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders with much more support.
My Comment:
Once again, I won't be referring to O'Rourke by his insufferable nickname. His name is Robert, not "Beto" and I won't participate in his pandering other than for purposes of clarification and search engines. Him going by Beto would be like me going by Tyrone. It's not only a total lie, it's pretty damn racist and nothing more than a cynical attempt to pander to the Hispanic community.
As for this news, I find it pretty amusing. For all the buzz about O'Rourke his star is fading fast. There is just too much competition in the Democratic Party for people to get excited for a guy that lost to Ted Cruz. He was way over-hyped from the beginning. There was no way a vanilla white guy from Texas was ever going to be the candidate for the Democrats in 2020.
He doesn't have the support of any of the major factions of the Democratic Party. The establishment might have liked him, but with Joe Biden in the race they are going all out for him, not O'Rouke. The economic leftists are still all in with Bernie Sanders. And the social justice left? No way would they go for a straight white male as their candidate. Who does that leave? I guess 5% of Democratic primary voters, if the polls are accurate.
I do think that what little momentum he had was ruined by Peter Buttgieg. They have similar policies and beliefs but Buttgieg has the advantage of being higher up on the progressive stack. As a gay man, Buttgieg checks off a box that O'Rourke would never be able to. Plus he got the 15 minutes of media fame that aren't quite up yet, while O'Rourke expended his "hot new thing" label awhile ago.
Of course, I still say that the current clown car of candidates is mostly a distraction between the real race between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Neither candidate has the nomination locked up but they are the ones with the most realistic chance of winning. O'Rourke will likely be an afterthought, just like Peter Buttgieg, Elizabeth Warren and the rest. Unless something truly shakes up the race, like Hillary Clinton rising from her political grave to run yet again, it's going to be between Sanders and Biden.
As for O'Rourke himself, I can't stand the guy. In terms of politics he's middle of the road horrible among the Democratic candidates, but that's damning by faint praise. Regardless of his politics, I have a strong, personal dislike for the guy. Even when he was running against Ted Cruz, who I still don't like, I thought he was a joke. I sincerely hope that this reboot fails and we won't be hearing from O'Rourke for much longer..
A terror attack targeting Christians in Burkina Faso has killed a priest and five worshipers. AFP. 20 to 30 attackers rushed into the church and opened fire. The group then set fire to the church and several other buildings including shops and a health center. The attack comes after French forces rescued civilians that were being held as hostages. The attack is very similar to another attack that happened in Burkina Faso two weeks ago. That attack also killed a pastor and five worshipers. It is unclear who was responsible for the attacks but ISIS and local groups are active in Burkina Faso.
My Comment:
Yet another attack on Christians worshiping in church. After the Sri Lanka attacks, this is the 2nd major attack on Christians that has flown under the radar. Part of that is due to the fact it happened in Africa and the small number of deaths may have had something to do with it as well, but you have to wonder why these attacks don't get the kind of coverage you would expect. If someone had shot up a mosque we would be hearing about it for months...
This attack seemed more like a chaotic spur of the moment thing than an actual planned attack. Given the large amount of attackers and the fact that they ran riot through the town makes me think that this was less of a professional attack and more of a unplanned one. It was pretty amateur compared to something like the Sri Lanka attacks.
It's also unclear why the attackers decided to attack a bunch of shops and a medical center as well. Were they just attacking, burning and looting for the sake of doing so or did they have a message to send as well? It might be that those were Christian owned businesses but it's just as possible that they wanted to cause havoc.
I don't know if Burkina Faso's security forces are up to this kind of challenge. The picture used by AFP doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I've hardly ever seen someone holding an AK that way and it doesn't really look like the soldier would be ready to defend himself or others on short notice. And, of course, the fact that these people were able to shoot up and burn a church and then run riot through a town without being confronted is pretty good evidence that Burkina Faso's security fores were not on the ball.
I generally think that places of worship need to start thinking more about security. We have seen in the past few months attacks on pretty much every kind of place of worship. Churches, synagogues and mosques have all been targeted. I know people have some kind of aversion to guns in churches, but I think armed defenders, be they worshipers or private and public security, are probably needed at some point. Churches are pretty vulnerable to attack as they are places where large numbers of people gather and are usually undefended. Plus they are good targets if you want to make a political point. I think it's well past time for churches and other places of worship to get some defenses going...
Zaver Pearl-Continental Hotel in Gwadar. BBC/Reuters.
A terror attack in Gwadar, Pakistan targeting a luxury hotel has killed 5 people. BBC. The attack killed three hotel workers, a security guard and a solider and six others were wounded in the attack. Three attackers were killed as well. The Balochistan Liberation Army, a separatist group, took credit for the attack. They disprove of the hotel as it is funded by the Chinese and other foreign investors. The goal of the attack was to take hotel guests hostage but due to the Ramadan holiday, there were not many guests at the hotel at the time. The three attackers had also placed IED's but were shot and killed before they could use them.
My Comment:
An odd attack for sure. It's somewhat surprising to see a terror attack in Pakistan for secular and not religious reasons, but by all accounts The Balochistan Liberation Army is a non-religious group. They are of course Muslim, but it's not their religion that inspired this attack.
The attack seemed pretty poorly planned. It's Ramadan right now so many Muslims are not on vacation. That means this hotel was mostly empty and there weren't many hostages to take. And they never were able to find any hostages in the first place. They might have done better to just use the hotel workers as hostages but they shot them instead.
It seems as though the Pakistani security forces did a good job at stopping this attack. It sounds like they were on site relatively quickly and prevented this from being a much worse attack. It's unclear what the IED's were as they could have been trying to blow up the hotel or may have just been trying to booby trap it, but either way stopping them before they could activate them is a very good thing.
I also think that we are going to see more of these kinds of attacks, in particular those targeting the Chinese. China has been throwing their weight around globally and have tried to expand their economic influence. They have been on a building spree internationally and sooner or later someone was going to have a problem with it. It's possible that more attacks like this could happen in the future as China grows in power and influence.
My Comment: Just a quick update about the border wall, it looks like more funds are being allocated. Though construction has taken more time than I would have hoped, it is finally starting to be built. $2.5 billion is a lot of money and can complete quite a bit of wall, and more money is coming.
Given the crisis at the border and the massive levels of violence in Mexico right now, I fully support the wall. With funds finally becoming available we might actually be able to stem the tide. Indeed, one of the reasons why illegal immigration is increasing is because so many people are trying to get there before the border is closed.
But was it a good idea to take the funds from Afghanistan? It's unclear exactly where these funds are coming from, other than the Afghan Security Fund. Clearly the Afghan government could use the money as they are losing the war pretty badly. Cutting the funds off won't help them win the war.
In my mind though, it's the right move. We are throwing good money after bad in Afghanistan and it's pretty clear that there isn't a military victory to be had in the country. Indeed, it looks like a favorable political solution is unlikely as well. We may as well put those funds to more immediate concerns.
As sad as it would be for the Afghan government to fall to the Taliban, our main interest in Afghanistan should not be nation building. Sure, we should fight against ISIS and/or al-Qaeda where ever they show up, but that doesn't mean that we should fight Afghanistan's war for them. It's about time that we bring some of that money back home and spend it on better things.
.jpg/1280px-US_Mexico_Border_Fence_Construction_(31467325507).jpg)